This is an archive of past discussions with User:Floquenbeam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
... and thanks for the hard work you've put into wiki over the last 10 years! I'm heartened to see that you're still floquating around: sustaining the level of energy you were expending is, however, all but impossible to keep up without burning out. Take care of yourself, and a general 'hi' from me. ! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris, Marnette, and Gerda! A little hard to believe. It should be a joyous occasion, but by stalking Chris' birthday-wishing contribs, and doing a little research, I see that buzzkill Tryptofish beat me in seniority by a measly 2 hours. Curses! At least I've made more edi... oh. Nevermind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Buzz here, and look at it this way: you're younger (and doubtless better looking) than I am. My reaction to getting it was to feel old, old, old. I looked at my earliest talk page archives and realized that I don't even remember a lot of that stuff (and am also embarrassed by some of the stuff I said). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I have been wikignoming recently, and while bored went to WP:ANI and made this contribution and earlier. I am now attempting to look for details of Betacommands ban, but am chasing my mangy and aged tail. If you could reply here or on my talkpage before I stumble across it myself, I would be grateful.LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC) (ps - wasn't Oversight the pits? It was for me...)
LHvU? LHvU?!? Well hello! Glad to see you found what you're looking for; I wouldn't have been any help even if I'd seen this an hour ago. I think in the last few years there was a big thing where someone was accused of being BC, and it ended up with a ban albeit with some people disagreeing it was him. Or something. Can't recall the name, tho. Started with a V or a W I think. Wish I had time to look at what you're talking about in more detail, but I've probably used up most of August's allotment of WP time in the last few days. Very glad to see you here, tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You will see here Betacommand admitting to having been Werieth as recently as December 2017, as part of an unban discussion. I suspect that most of the people who were claiming that one was not the other were contributors very well aware that they were. If it does come to light that B is socking still, has been for a while, then I think it is time that certain actors in this charade have their nett benefit to the project reviewed. Anyhoo, possibly not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Your present institution only allows a certain amount of time on the project? For whose protection? Be well, old friend!
OK, so you know about an order of magnitude more than me. It's really your fault for asking an idiot, you should have known better. You be well too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
No reason to clog up the ban discussion with this, but the way I read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, "block evasion" is one specific type of sockpuppetry, while "multiple accounts at the same time" is another form of sockpuppetry. Basically, sockpuppetry is having over your career multiple accounts for illegitimate reasons, no matter if these are parallel, sequential, or both. So I don't think that you are correct when you claim that "sock puppetry and block evasion are technically different", but it's not really helpful if I would add that to the ANI discussion... Fram (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. I wasn't really trying to pick who was correct and who was incorrect between you and Ivanvector, I just saw two people who are both clueful fundamentally disagreeing about whether the sky was blue or not, and both seemed to be amazed the other didn't see the obvious truth, and I thought this could explain the disagreement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"The exact same opinion 2 more times"
In this particular context, I'm concerned that this thread might be closed before everyone has had an opportunity to state the exact same opinion 2 more times seems a trifle unfair. Multiple people all of the same opinion is how we judge whether that opinion has consensus or not; if the close had been challenged and nobody—or only one person—defended, it would be quite legitimate to say that the close was out-of-process and should be reverted. ‑ Iridescent14:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Depending on if I feel like being self-deprecating or not, I've either miscommunicated, or you've misunderstood. I mean everyone gives their exact same opinion again, even though it is different from the next person who also is just regurgitating their exact same opinion again. I'm somewhat aware that if everyone has the same opinion, there's a consensus...--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I always enjoy a 13,000-word 4-day debate over whether the use of the word "dogshit" in an AfD is a sanctionable offense. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes a thread on AN or ANI is a "discussion" thread (in which case if something's already been said there's no reason to comment), and other times the thread morphs into a "voting" (or I should say "consensus determination") thread in which case "I agree with X and Y" can be important input. Unfortunately, it's not always clear which sort of thread is which, which is one of the several reasons that the noticeboards do not always operate as well-oiled machines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not really what I'm getting at either. I'm saying that in that particular thread, multiple people felt the need multiple times to reiterate something they, themselves, had already said. Then, when an admin finally closed it, it was reopened... so that some people could say the same things yet again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Free fun fact at no additional charge: before I decided to reword that comment slightly, I did actual research and discovered that the adverbial form of "silly" is "sillily". Spell checker doesn't like it, tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Mine underlined it, too. You weren't kidding, either, it's got everything from petty pedantry to bureaucratic nonsense and there are plenty of self-important editors to get bent out of shape about something that happened in it. It's classic Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I still think it was a valid question to ask. Determining consensus on Wikipedia is one of those things that seems to make nobody happy, and "within admin discretion" is such a wide, all encompassing zone. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Holidays on the Front Page
Thanks for your comments regarding Yom Kippur. I do agree with you about your comment. How do we go about changing the policy? At the very least certain "major" holidays should be afforded front page status unless it's really terrible. Sir Joseph(talk)18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I honestly don't think it is possible to change this. The times I've seen this discussed (many times at WP:ERRORS and at WP:ITN/C, Talk:Main Page, and I'm sure there are others), there's a very large and vocal majority of people who believe articles should not be listed on the main page unless pretty much every statement is referenced. While I think we should be more open to linking articles in progress, I know I am in the distinct minority. I can pretty much guarantee the response to your suggestion is going to be "If it is important to you, then fix the article. If you don't fix the article, then it is obviously not important enough to you". Depending on who it is saying it, there may also be accusations questioning your good faith, intelligence, and motivations. I am not really up for that. If you really want a discussion, I'd suggest WT:OTD (in fact, I'd look at the archives for that page to see if there are any previous OTD-specific discussions), with a notice at Talk:Main Page about it, but frankly I suggest not trying to change it. Maybe a project for WP:JUDAISM to get it up to spec? I think the Easter article was fixed up as a joint effort of the WP:CHRISTIANITY project, although I might be misremembering. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think any article needs to be as referenced or as up to FA status to be on the front page. That's not the point of the FP. But I do see your point in dealing in that oftentimes toxic area. What I usually do if I remember early enough is indeed post on the project page a week or so in advance to make sure articles are up to snuff. This time Yom Kippur slipped my mind. Thanks anyway.Sir Joseph(talk)19:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The main concern is that discussions like this - where you're proposing a change to fundamental, well-established Wikipedia core policy that I 100% guarantee is not going to change - only have 2 possible outcomes: either (a) being ignored, or (b) becoming a troll magnet for disgruntled editors. I don't see any benefit to such a discussion in either case. You know where you should go? Jimbo Wales' talk page. That's kind of a free fire zone, and no one expects discussions there to be terribly productive. Discussions there tend to become option (b) instead of option (a), and you're still going to get criticized, probably harshly, but there's a smaller chance that it will get hatted. There might also be some kind of open mike type place on Meta. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
IAC
I noticed the notice - "not here" - but hope that you are because of this. Whoever it is, they're not giving up, despite the warnings and explanations. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: I'm not not here, but I'm not completely here either. I should probably stop dipping my toe into complicated things until/unless I'm around more reliably. Or at least come up with a more accurate notice. Anyway, looks like Bish took care of the page protection, and if (according to the ANI thread) the next logical step is a range block, I wouldn't be much use there anyway. In spite of being mocked mercilessly by Bish, I really still just don't understand those well enough to do them. Glad to see you around, by the way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Hi, thanks for your edits on Ana María Campos. The Resistance Campaign section outlines the whole story, including date of arrest and by whom, and the Torture and Death section goes into detail. Perhaps the text should be streamlined so it isn't so repetitive. Yoninah (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah:, yeah, that's really confusing, at least to me. It definitely makes it sound like she was arrested and tortured twice. I think it should probably be rearranged and condensed, but I'm about to have to sign off for the night. Thanks for the "thanks", and thanks to you as well for the work. I'm not sure that one was quite ready for Prime Time, but I guess the date of death made a hard deadline. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and streamlined it. Yes, it really should have been held back for more careful work, but your edits really improved things as it just went live. Thanks again, Yoninah (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoninah! - As someone who sometimes rushes for some anniversary, I understand, though. But 190 years of preparation should have been long enough ;) - Well, I knew in January that 1 January would be the tricentenary of a Bach cantata, and it still took me until now to nominate it for FA, - I can't really complain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Gerda Arendt: I tweaked the hook due to a comment at WP:ERRORS; last night I took it on faith that the sources said this, but tried to exercise my imperfect Spanish today in response to the comment by an IP editor. As a wise and omniscient person, I can agree it is frustrating when this happens, and also agree with Gerda that I kind of understand how it happens. We're a work in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You'll be interested to see this SPI report, where the username similarities and behavioral evidence are certain; it's an open-and-shut case to me. I didn't want to update the block you applied without your prior approval, however, since you added a very descriptive rationale in the block reason. Let me know what you'd like me to do (ping me). Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)13:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Floquenbeam - No worries; don't overwork yourself or stress yourself out. I'll be happy to do what's best; I just figured I'd inform you about the SPI and make sure you were okay with me updating the block. Thanks for the response :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)14:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
please feel free to decline
Hi. I hope you are well. If you dont mind, can you tell in which age group you are? Like 20's, 30's, 70's, 80's, 120's? Please feel free to say "no", but if you answer, kindly dont lie —usernamekiran(talk)23:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not so much that it's a big secret, but that it's kind of an inappropriate question to ask someone you don't really know. Whether you say "please feel free to say 'no'" or not. Not, like, deeply inappropriate or anything, but a little off-putting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought this question was asked in somebody else's RfA. I finally found it! I am going to sleep like a polar bear tonight. —usernamekiran(talk)23:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You and I have had our differences on occasions, yes. But nothing that changes my opinion that you are one of the admins that we need to have around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Wherein Gerda asks me to actually do productive work
May I ask - once so capable admins are in sight - that someone please close the RfC on Talk:Arvo Pärt? The one who iniated it already made the change that most want, - no point to keep it open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Thryduulf I was tempted to research what the case request with the most comments actually was, but couldn't justify the time to look. Plus, Iri probably already knows off the top of their head. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Without researching, I recall that one of the requests involving Eric/Malleus had more than 100 comments. I believe that was the record, or at least I sure as hell hope it was. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I won't be of any use there. To be honest, I really have no idea what is going on at that article. I do not understand the topic at all, and it is not obvious whether most additions are OK, or most reverts are OK. The only thing that was obvious to me is you aren't a vandal, so I declined the bad faith AIV report; I still have no idea if you're actually right or wrong. That article talk page sure seems underutilized, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Anna Delvey Wikipedia Records: Thank You
I went ahead and followed the directions that you provided.
I included link references to the New York District Attorney office press release, which was referenced on Wikipedia in the past. It's just strange to me that her main description doesn't mention that fact that she's facing six counts of grand larceny or anything about her alleged criminal conduct whatsoever. That seems like kind of an important aspect of her life description to me.
She wasn't even an actual socialite as some Wikipedia publishers seem to think...
You're welcome. I see discussion has started on the article talk page. I know nothing about (and have no real interest in) the subject, so I'll bow out now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Might I recommend a block here? He removed your comment from the talk page. I reverted him but the dude is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Perfect timing, just looking in for 5 minutes before walking away from WP for the weekend. It's not really a problem if he removed my comment; it's just important he read it. I should have left it on his talk page, to be honest. Because I'm walking away, I'll leave blocking/etc. to others; the AN/ANI thread is still active I assume. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out why you can't just enjoy your own weekend, when I realized: OH SHIT. It's not Friday!! I'm NOT off for the weekend, I have to do this again tomorrow?! Why was I convinced it was Friday?! Why is my mind going so quickly?! I'm so young!? Well, I'm walking out for the evening, anyway. Sorry to get your hopes up, Ponyo. Next time I play hookey on Friday, you're invited too. But not tomorrow :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I am so very sorry to have been the one to burst your beautiful visions of a Friday get-away. If it's any solace, I have to make it through tomorrow as well, and it's a long weekend here! You must be aware of the tedium involved in toiling away on a pre-long-weekend Friday. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots00:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I tried to insert myself there again, we'll see what happens. Dr. Nobody is doing a lot of things wrong, but the dogpile feels unproductive to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Not that it matters but I just wanted to clarify I have no idea what the heck he meant by "doxing on social media". I wasn't even aware he HAD a social media... --Tarage (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
No need to clarify, my operating assumption was that he's lying, just like he's lying that "his lawyers" think he has a good case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
(that's what I read on top, not looking closely ;) ) - DYK that Sam Korn was declared awesome 10 years ago, and I can't tell him because the talk is protected, and a little bird told me that's not needed any more? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
If only I *were* King of here (Although I prefer the title God Emperor). I'm torn about unprotecting Sam's talk page. Bish was obviously able to post as an admin. I don't remember the details, but I believe I protected it several years ago specifically at his request. And reading between the lines, it appears his semi-recent post was not evidence that he planned to ever return to that account. Unless I hear differently (pinging @Sam Korn: just in case he cares to comment), I think I'm inclined to respect the last thing I heard from him, and keep the talk page protected. Maybe @Bishonen:, who seems to know him better, disagrees? If Bish, or any admin, thinks I'm wrong please feel free to unprotect without talking to me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree it seems small after the sad news about Boris. But yes, Florence protected Sam's talkpage at Sam's request in 2014.[3] Sam's post on my page shows he knows it was protected, and since he didn't protest against that state, I'd leave it like that unless we hear from him. Bishonen | talk19:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC).
I just wanted to formally approve of you unblocking both users. I don't consider either on to be a "rogue unblock" in the least. Have a good one. Jauerbackdude?/dude.16:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Jauerback, at first I thought you'd explicitly said it was OK, then I was sure Drmies was right that you wouldn't mind, but I *still* forgot to tell you I'd done so. I'm sorry. Glad for the confirmation, and glad there are no hard feelings. Dickishness due to inattention, not malice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Mường Tè District edits
I want to undo this page to my latest. The current version is not relevant anymore and needs updating.
Also, I'm intending to add more contents about the district geography, population, etc.
Cn5900 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me, but surely something needs to be done about this sort of thing from Flyer22 Reborn. Your comment on my talk page seems to contradict what she's saying, and she's not going to stop spreading around the idea that I was reprimanded for doing something egregious and am on the edge of a block. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Floquenbeam clearly stated, on your talk page, "I don't really consider it a 'warning', because I am confident Curly Turkey is being honest, and won't look thru Flyer's contribs anymore. If CT occasionally edits a page that happens to be on Flyer's watchlist, I'm equally confident Flyer is not going to make a spurrious ANI report. If CT edits a bunch of pages on Flyer's watchlist, I imagine a new ANI report could result in some kind of i-ban. But we are not at that stage right now. CT did something, it bothered Flyer, CT now knows, and won't do it again. My confidence is sometimes misplaced, but I'm still operating under the assumption that it is justified." How does that not equate to you continuing to do what you were doing may lead to a reprimand or a block? Even Jytdog interpreted the close as a warning. Of course, Flo clarified, but the "If CT edits a bunch of pages on Flyer's watchlist" bit is also clear. You were clear that you stopped editing the articles after I expressed annoyance. It is clear to me that you otherwise would have kept the "must edit these articles Flyer has edited" behavior going on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You stated that "she's not going to stop spreading around the idea that I was reprimanded for doing something egregious and am on the edge of a block." Wrong. I'm just not that interested in you, which is why it was not me who started following you to articles. I always move on. There are important things for me to do on Wikipedia (as many note). Bickering with you is not one of them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
As fun as it would be to host a continuation of your "discussion" at WT:MOS on my talk page for the next couple of days, I think I'll pass. My close of the ANI thread (and subsequent explanation) does not mean I'm going to babysit the dispute. I intentionally closed it without finding fault or making threats. That WT:MOS discussion is pretty embarrassing for both of you; I'd have thought that neither one would want to keep adding to it. I understand getting angry in the moment, but surely there's been enough time to regain perspective and realize you're both acting poorly? Step one (possibly the only step needed) would be both of you simultaneously disengaging: stop responding to perceived insults, close the affiliated threads on your talk pages to prevent further stirring by others, etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Flo. And I agree (except for the interpretation of Curly Turkey following me to articles). Sorry that this was dragged to your talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
This is frustrating, Floquenbeam—it's giving Flyer22 a free pass to lie to people that I'm on probation, and she's clearly not going to stop telling people I've been "hounding" her (just look at that last comment). This isn't a "perceived insult"—this is slander and harassment, and if it is ignored now it'll just end up back at ANI. I've already promised to disengage; she needs to retract that comment, and she needs to promise to stop slagging me. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!00:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You've both now promised to disengage, and I hatted that last post by Flyer22 (and a lot of other stuff too). So hopefully another trip to ANI can be avoided. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I tried to "thank" you and accidentally clicked "thank" on one of Flyer22's posts—just so we know this was an accident and not one of those trolling "thanks". Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!01:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting you want to win; I'm suggesting that Softlavender is the type of person for whom conflict is fun and winning is very important, so you can't have a reasonable conversation with them once they've decided they must have their way, because any change from what they've already done would count in their eyes as a loss. They really don't see anything wrong with edit warring on Boris' talk page as long as it means they win. Wikipedia is crawling with people like that. It's really depressing. But dealing with them is even more so. If you want to keep trying to persuade, or seek consensus somewhere, I'll hope it works; but I have no confidence. If it ends up not working, then if you point me to what links to now-archived content they have broken, I'll try to help fix them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It sticks in my craw to have to fix Softlavender's fuckups, when it shouldn't have been archived to start with. But if it's still a mess I suppose I can try to help you tomorrow. Sorry I'm not helping you dispute the archiving; I just don't have the stomach for horrible people right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It fixed two rounds now (and am sure I missed links), and will travel 2 days. Don't waste your time. His son agreed so who are we to complain? What was archive 8 is now 6, and 6 is 4, and transparency is missing, and consensus seems a word from a different language, but who are we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Flo - your comment aroused my curiosity because if my oppose was one of the 5 you found "kind of nuts, and I don't want to look like I'm part of that", I'd like to know so I can improve my arguments. Atsme✍🏻📧16:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't directed at you specifically, no. A badAn annoying experience with them during an article discussion was my problem too (tho, to be fair, my experience was more like typical Wikipedia editor talk page behavior - which I hate - than something really out of the ordinary). It was directed primarily at people who (a) fall into the "1 year isn't enough, 25k edits aren't enough" category, or (b) who are clearly (to me) motivated by political animus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
No problem, it's certainly not just you; I'm sure at this moment there are 4 threads at AN/ANI with the thread title ==Example (talk·contribs)==. I learned a long time ago life was too short to correct them all.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
Now, since I satisfied the two initial complainers (Azdaja and Surtsicna) who based their complaints on the lack of sources, what's the problem now? I understand now that I can't refer to other Wikipedia pages as a source, but changing that and having the information in the text in regard - what would possibly be a reasonable, additional reason to delete these facts? I want an answer from a factual perspective about the actual text, not a problem about references and other thing that are no problem fixing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipjako (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have to cross my fingers in hope of reaching a consensus with people who wrongfully disagrees in hope of letting the facts stay at the page? How absurd does that sound? There's a need of a third party in this situation, urgently. I know that it may not be your job, but I need to report this to someone since my hopes of resolving this issue with potential history revisionists, who by the way most likely belong to the Bosniak nation (since Bosniak nationalism is extremely anti-Serb. I'm not blaming them individually for being Bosniak and therefore deleting the edits, that's absurd), are not convincing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipjako (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a collaborative project. We operate by consensus. Instead of accusing other editors of editing impartially due to their ethnicity, start out by having a good faith discussion on the article talk page. if you cannot even try that, then please find another website. If you can do that, then see what happens. If you cannot come to an agreement, there are other options available to you at WP:Dispute resolution. But first you really have to drop the "but they might be Bosniak" game; it will get you removed from the site. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Now what, from who can I expect an answer? Check the talk page and see if everything's corrected, if I'm not playing any so-called games that will get me blocked etc. Filipjako (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Filipjako:, since you're looking for feedback: that's kind of an unimpressive talk page post; you're still assuming the worst about other editors, and on a consensus-driven project, that is self-defeating. Just explain what you want to do, justify it, and listen to other editors' responses. Leave out all the other stuff. @Surtsicna:, please do me a favor and engage on the talk page, modelling for Filipjako how a productive content-related dispute should go. If their reply is content-focused, we've successfully changed the nature of the interaction. If it continues to be ad hominem, I'll research how to break out the ArbCom-Balkans toolkit (it's still under discretionary sanctions, yes?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean, we will be; I've got too much respect to stay upset. But I'm a little raw right now, so let's talk later. I really wasn't accusing you of lying, and it hurt and amazes me that you thought I was. I'll drop you an email next week; I'm disoriented by all the defensiveness, and feel like there must be something going on that I don't understand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't intend to pin it on you ... I guess I screwed up. Next week is good; I need for the TFA coords to get back with me so that we can move on to the next step, then things can start getting better. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I've given this a lot of thought. I screwed up, I think I understand how I screwed up (and I don't blame myself, because it's a universal human failing), and I have a solution that I hope you'll be happy with. I'm on a 3-day break (anniversary!), I'll make a proposal and another apology on Wednesday. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dank: I've got a few thoughts I'll handle by email soonish, but I wanted to publicly (a) accept your apology (and no second apology tomorrow is needed, at least for me), and (b) apologize to you as well; I thought my point was clear, but since 2-3 people misinterpreted, the problem was obviously how I worded it and not how you read it. No criticism of the TFA coords was intended. I'll explain what I was trying to say by email. Oh, and happy anniversary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a few things I may already understand without having to be told. Short version: I've been asking you guys to accept me as a peer, while simultaneously asserting that I have a special hat ... and that's really a big ask. And you guys have been very gracious about that. Also, I haven't said often enough how much I think of ERRORS/TFA as a successful joint effort, a win for all of the ERRORS regulars and commenters. I want to try to recover from my lapses. One thing I want to do is open up some distance between myself and the other coords, so that it's clearer that I'm not asserting any privileges. I offered to step down, but the offer was refused, with extreme prejudice :). OTOH, the other coords have some strong feelings they haven't talked about yet, along the lines of what Wehwalt was saying, and I hope they'll be clearer with everyone about where they'd like to draw the line ... and what tools are available to them to draw lines. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
For consistent exercise of good judgement, and acting to defuse minor conflicts (that weren't going anywhere anyway), I award you with a diplomat's barnstar. And not just because "per" me ;)
I rarely think to thank people for positive actions; not so rarely to chide them for negative ones. If the good were rewarded as often as the bad condemned, there might very well be less bitterness manifesting in minutia. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
A disambig page would be good. They will need appropriate inline summaries too. E.g. WP:AN/I – For maximum effect please take all content disputes; low level grievances; and spoken naughty words here. WP:AN/EW - If someone has reverted a change you made, no more than three times, please take it here. WP:ARC - If you have not attempted even a single other venue of dispute resolution, please take it here. Etc, etc. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Inexperienced With Tagging
Hi there, I'm inexperienced with tagging things for deletion and only vaguely up to date with policy for deleting content. So I was wondering if you could take a look at something which I think is suspicious? I've removed one of the user's non-notable list entry contributions from the main-space but now they've started adding suspected self promotional material to their user page. The user page is: User:The_Real_Steele. Thank you in advance. -=Troop=- (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
That could probably have been deleted, but I prefer a somewhat gentler approach. I've removed the promotional link, and left a message on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't much care whether Aspentsi is banned or not, but I don't see how you can close a ban discussion when so many people have already voted (support rather overwhelmingly) just because you think it's dumb. I strongly urge you to revert your closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I cannot imagine the benefit of reopening. It's not that I think it's dumb; it is objectively dumb to have this kind of discussion. It's like having a vote for a vandalism only account. Of course there's overwhelming support, it's completely obvious. He's already de facto banned. Not like 99% certain, 100% certain. I've left a note to admins to that effect on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
"objectively dumb"? Sounds like the sort of thing I might say in RL. In any event, it's not good enough, Floq. Your saying someone is "de facto banned" doesn't make them banned. Vandalism-only accounts are too often, unfortunately, unblocked, and it's done by a single admin. If it's so obvious, then why not do a snow close as banned, or if that strikes you as procedurally deficient (not that I think you care much about such things), what's the harm in waiting the 24h? You don't even have to look at it if it bothers you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to teach other people how not to waste time. The benefit of a close is that it incrementally increases the likelihood that next time someone will say "I guess I don't need to waste people's time doing something similar". --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Very funny. You should start a Wikipedia project called "How Not To Waste Time", sort of like the editor retention project, a noble pipe dream. Your project is doomed to failure - this is Wikipedia, remember? - but if you want to make a real dent, don't close a discussion at ANI. Delete ANI and salt it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Ooooh, are we doing Votes for Banning? I haven't really read more than the last two posts in the thread, I don't know anything about the context, and in fact I'm only about 80% sure which page I'm even posting on, but I see a chance to grab a torch and pitchfork and bold-vote to ban something, so support! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh for God's sake, they re-opened it so they can vote some more. How many times can one website jump the shark? It seems it should be "one" by definition, but this is like the eighth time by my count. And that's only since Wednesday afternoon. How anyone can re-open that, and in the same breath say "I understand your motivations" is beyond me. Wikipedia turns people's brains to mush. Now hurry, go join the crowd voting on whether to ban an anti-Semite or not (a nail-biter at 23-2 before re-opening, and those two were just objecting to the stupidity of the vote), because otherwise you probably secretly support anti-Semitism and are not of the Body! --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Not for the first time, I find myself wishing that whoever decided Wikipedia needed a formal distinction between "blocks" and "bans", meaning that each time we block a troll, crank or POV-pusher we're obliged to hold a re-run of the discussion that led to the block just so all the usual "look at me" ANI denizens can pontificate on whether the editor in question was naughty or really naughty, should be roasted for eternity in Wiki-hell. The original talkpage where these things were decided is an interesting piece of wiki-archaeology. ‑ Iridescent16:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That's hilarious. The part I liked best was individuals who subsequently became members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees saying that the hypothetically God-King-like powers of Jimbo were an anachronism. In 2003. Precious. Risker (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Jimbo thought his God-king powers were hypothetical—if you look at the original vote to create Arbcom, he signed it off Le Roy le veult. From some people I'd assume it was an attempt at comedy, but self-deprecating irony is not a trait I associate with him. ‑ Iridescent17:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
What it comes down to is the subset of the English Wikipedia community who participate in such discussions don't trust admins to decide who to ban from the site. isaacl (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Well-Meaning Fuckup Club, Floq. Our next meeting starts at 6:00, but if you get there at 5:53 you will be asked to leave and come back at 6:00, or 7:15, or 11:30, or next February. 28bytes (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
e/c with Ivan: The fuckup is not mine (or yours). I think it's time to unwatchlist ANI again, the level of well intentioned dumbness is too much. I was thinking of creating AN/R, but the drama mongers would find it in a week or two anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
It is in fact very important that I, some random Wikipedian, inform everyone here that I am neutral about whatever it is y'all are talking about, but I feel very strongly about expressing my opinion. I didn't read the discussion, though, I need to waste everyone else's time, not my own. I had an edit conflict posting this, it's important everyone is aware of that too. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
This discussion made me realize that I've gotten up on a high horse more than once about letting ban discussions run for a full day because I suspected people of trying to get them closed at Peak Angry Mob before any potential opposition had had a chance to weigh in, and I was probably wrong about that as a general rule. (I really didn't read the thread or know the context before my first post, I just wanted to jump in with a pitchfork to make fun of ANI ;) I sorta feel like I should post "I think I changed my mind" in discussions that caused that, yet I also now feel guilty because I didn't realize anyone actually left that "email me for every talk page message" setting on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: (pinging since this is in the middle of the thread and might get lost): there are certainly valid reasons to keep a ban discussion open longer, and that's one of them. No one should think I'm against full discussion when it is warranted. That's a fine and appropriate use of a high horse. What this particular dust-up is about is not like that at all. It was 100% pointless (except, I suppose, as an opportunity in virtue signalling), we insta-ban people like this all the time with no discussion at all. But not only was this started for no benefit, and compelling 30 some-odd people to comment, it was reopened for no benefit, when there was absolutely zero chance of a change in outcome. That's what I find frustrating. And of course, when the account appeals the community ban, we'll going to have another 1+ day discussion at AN about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
When the outcome is obvious, I think editors ought to show restraint and refrain from adding to the length of the discussion... But people like to weigh in, and often it's not worth the effort to try to stop them. (Part of the problem is how English Wikipedia makes decisions by straw poll, but that's a whole other discussion.) At least in this case the comments remained relatively calm, whereas in other situations people will needlessly escalate the negative comments. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a point - it would have all been over and closed now in favour of the community's wishes had the ban discussion not been prematurely closed in defiance of a very strongly developing consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
It would have been all over 20 hours ago if you hadn't reopened it for no good reason whatsoever. And it would have been over 27 hours ago if someone had closed it as "indeffed by Courcelles" 13 minutes after the thread opened. Everything after Courcelles' post was stupid and pointless. And "in defiance of a very strongly developing consensus"?! Give me a break. At least have the grace not to blame others for your mistake. The only person who complicated things was you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
My mistake? I have a lot of respect for you, Floquenbeam, for what you've done over the years, but who the fuck are you to dictate to the community that a discussion on a possible ban (in accordance with WP:CBAN) is not allowed? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
And now you're adding arrogant condescension, implying that the only reason I might disagree with you is because I didn't read what you wrote. I know you're better than that. Whether you choose to respond further is up to you, but I have to say I'm very disappointed by the tone of your response to valid and civil disagreement with your actions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Please stop. Every time you correct an error or get something else off your chest, I get another email notification. that's like 4 emails now. I don't want to have to turn notifications off. I understand. You're deeply disappointed. I get it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, one last disturbance, sorry - I think we're actually on the same side underneath all of this, so is it OK if I send you an email (not today, maybe tomorrow)? Just say yes or don't - either way, I'll respect your request to not comment here further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, @Boing! said Zebedee:, of course you can send me an email. I'm just annoyed, not seeking to cut off all contact. (in fact, if you promise to use preview more, you can post here too.. :) .. it was just a bit much yesterday ) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but there's probably nothing to say now (except that I'm surprised you have email notifications for talk page messages enabled - that would drive me nuts ;-). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't tell anyone, lest they reopen the thread and start a ban discussion, but we just got rid of a white supremacist in 40 minutes, from report until archiving. Like the ((())) guy, 13 minutes from report to block. No community ban, no virtue signalling, no re-opening so people on the other side of the world could comment. Just blocked and moved on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk16:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Floq,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk20:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
😂 - Ok, now that you've figured out how to ping, I actually do have a special greeting that I've been saving for special occasions like this one - and it comes from the heart and in the spirit of good will during this very special time of year...
Hey Floquenbeam, i lOvE yOu and wish you a pleasant Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. 🐇🐇🐇 Flooded with them hundreds09:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Floquenbeam, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Wishing you all the best for x-mass, hope it is a time of, some but not too much, cheer. Giving this as a "voice of reason 2018" award. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Tricentenary, was hard to beat ;) - I was actually prouder to have our music pictured in the DYK section that day, and even more of having helped bringing Amos Oz on the same page. I was there when he got the peace prize. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
While this IP and USN007's interests don't overlap, they both clearly overlap with the IP I blocked as a sock last year. So, blocked this IP too. Thanks for the report, User:Bsherr. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I am telling you because you interacted previously with user User:AveTory. I think he definitely has a problem with BLP policy. I talked with him before, talked now, but without much success [4],[5]. Well, I do not care too much and can leave "his" version of a page about a Ukrainian presidential candidate, but his recent addition is definitely not consistent with our BLP requirements in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi MVBW, I have just enough time today to deal with something I'm already involved with, and then I need to log back off. If it's urgent, I'd suggest AN or ANI. If not, I'll take a look tomorrow. Or maybe a talk page stalker wants to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to keep pinging you, MVBW, but things in real life keep popping up, and I'm not sure I'm going to be online the rest of the week. If this is something that can't wait, please go to ANI or another admin. Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was suboptimal. I'm sorry my crappy schedule prevented a timely response, but agree there's not much benefit prolonging this if it hasn't continued. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
2019 PS
If you have a moment, check out User:Gerda Arendt/Images 2019 (formerly Christmas), for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda, that did brighten my day, I'm glad to see that made it to the Main Page. But <pauses to put on nerd hat> ... isn't his math wrong?! </nerd hat> --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, his math is wrong ;) - thank you for noticing. I pointed that out, on the talk, DYK? It's still a correct quote, and I'll make "it's kind of neat" one of my phrases. Just today, I elevated the other ("go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset") to my talk page, instead of just edit notice. Good note to self, many times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Useful animated Swedish smiley
Special defrocked arb salon. Special duchesse-brisée[1] chaise longue for the little Floq!Floq takes a bite out of a pommes duchesse brisée (a gift from a "friend").
That *is* useful. Hiya Bish. Looks like you escaped a desysop by the skin of your teeth. But I see one or two Arbs couldn't resist the urge to wag a finger at you two. I'm sure they had a stern look on their face while they did it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe there'll be admonishments. One of the little pocket arbs treated me to a description of the committee's collective facial expression the time they admonished Bishzilla.[6] (All arbs should be pocket arbs!) Bishonen | talk01:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC).
Ooooh. Not just admonished. Strongly admonished. Hey, can I be a pocket ex-arb? Real life is wearing me down the last few weeks, need a safe place to hide from the world. Unbelievable that Christmas season is over and these people expect me to work again. Like, a full 5 days a week! Rude! --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
We wouldn't want another Arbcom request, would we? It was an interesting experience, though, the first time I've ever posted there, IIRC, but I think I'll continue to stay as far away from the dramahboards as I can, life's too short to waste time on bickering and backstabbing. - Tom | Thomas.W talk22:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Replies: Tony, I am confused and frightened by all the 21st century's technology. It never occurred to me that I could have just used my phone and added as many 🙄's as I wanted. Iri, that's way to complicated. User:Bellezzasolo, I agree someone (i.e. not me) should do that. IP (who I can't ping), yes, that's not too user-friendly. The way Ive done emojis before is to Google them, find a link I can copy/paste from, and *that's* more user-friendly than {{emoji}}. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
That's because I never make mistakes. I have outdone myself: the entire thread was a screw-up, as others have politely pointed out at AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
To be a true "mistake incompleteness theorem", I think you need to say directly "I never make mistakes, including my previous statement that I make a lot of mistakes". But this is a pretty good approximation, and leaves some steps for the reader. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I kno how to spel. I done lernt in homey skoolin. Florence is long! Flo, flo, flo your float, gently down the pool...--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you blocked Anaxagoras13 in 2017 for "frequent inappropriate accusations of vandalism". He is up to it again by attacking my edits as vandalism. As seen here [7], [8] and [9]. Can something be done about this? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
That's not quite true; I blocked him for edit warring and calling everyone a vandal. Here's the thing, though: Yes, he's needlessly being a jerk. But you're both edit warring, and in trying to figure out what's going on, I've noticed you frequently being a jerk, both to him, and other editors. So my personal take is "to hell with you both". I don't have time to figure out who started what, or who to block for longer, so I'll let you both continue to be miserable until one of you goes to ANI, at which point I hope you both get slapped down. Nothing is more annoying that an eggshell armed with a hammer: you seem to feel free to treat others like shit, but whine when someone is mean to you. Go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Bish, I'm not defending Anaxagoras13, and I'm not concerned he's been blocked. But it strikes me as rewarding Sportsfan's chutzpah to allow him to engage in bad behavior (calling other editors "morons", telling a new editor he's "not here to clean up their mess" for making formatting mistakes, reverting Anaxagoras13 (and lots of other editors) - using "undo" because rollback was taken away last year - with no explanation why... and that's just the last month on their talk page) and then go running to an admin when someone says something mean to him. I assume karma will catch up eventually, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm guilty of name-calling, although I don't think I've ever called anyone a moron (which some doubtless would think to be a pot/kettle situation). It usually takes me a while before I get that het up but I don't go running for admin assistance if they throw it at me either, and more often than not it is coming in my direction rather than from it. I use admins a lot but any verbal flak against me tends to be reported by others or spotted by an admin anyway. Perhaps I am being favoured. I don't suffer fools lightly but my bigger failing is knowing that is so but still not being able to do much about it. Is, say, 30 minutes "a while"? You decide! - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. God knows I'm more guilty than you of using the occasional expletive (and if I forget, a little birdie reminds me soon enough). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
come across Guy's thread over ANI aprior to my actions. Curiously, I see that the one who closed it thanked me, for my edit. Being bold is usually good (though probably stupid on my part, given that he was blocked and ranting semi-coherently) and, it won't harm to assume some good faith. Cheers. ∯WBGconverse20:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Another Balkan issue
Please help out, trying to revert to the original text while there's at least two users who are editing away some terms with a clear agenda (since those terms are factual and not directly provocative)
I really do not understand the background enough to know what is going on there. You could ping Future Perfect at Sunrise; I basically trust their judgement on Eastern European and Balkan stuff completely. I won't ping him myself (I used {{noping}}) in case you don't want it. But I don't think I can help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
7 day block on 74.51.210.66
Hi Floquenbeam. I would take a look at the history of vandalism from this IP account over the last few weeks/months. I think a block longer than 7 days is needed? Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I actually just unblocked; some of the edits today are definitely useful. Are you positive the removals are vandalism, and not some kind of misguided attempt to improve? I wonder if we're dealing with lack-of-explanation, rather than clear vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at all their Zodiac-related article edits for the last month. Every one is reverted by another editor. They sometimes include a misleading edit summary. If you have a few minutes, would be worth scanning through. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
We're cross-posting, I've replied on the IP's talk page. Let's keep it there so I don't get confused. Sorry if you think I'm wasting your (and others) time; we'll know soon enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Blocked user
Hi,
Just dropping you a note to let you know I had to block this user. We received a report at AIV from Gaelan regarding their behaviour. I read your notice on their talk page and blocked them for one month. At least they're now reading their talk page. Feel free to undo me if you think the block is wrong -- 5 albert square (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2019
Once I started second guessing myself, it was hard to convince myself I knew for sure what was going on. Good block, thanks. Pinging on a phone is a bother, so perhaps the people who’s time I wasted last week are watching this page and will see my “I’m sorry”. —-Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack yourself, as you did on WP:ERRORS. Please comment on the contributions and not yourself. If you make any further self-attacks you may have to report yourself to yourself, which may result in a self-block. Thank you. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM23:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel like I should understand that - and that it's probably pretty funny - but sorry, I don't understand... well... any of that, Dloh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
any time!
Re: "I have generally shared JzG's exasperation with B2C's general approach..."
Hi, Floq! Just so you know (in case you missed my comment elsewhere), I am no longer mentoring IW. I had told him I wouldn't be able to help him if he didn't listen to my advice, and he flatly rejected my advice to stop throwing GA articles into GA-review (I see he has even done it with an FA now). Direct quote, from his talk page: "It doesn't really matter how many of them don't want me to review." A mentee (is that a word?) has to be willing to accept advice, so I have withdrawn my offer to mentor him. In other words, any time you think he needs a warning or a block, no need to consult me; I will not be standing in the way. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm quite concerned about this user: I'm not sure if it's a problem with age, maturity, or intention, but their reactions to sound (and polite) advice from several admins have been discouraging. Vanamonde (Talk)02:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
...for the unblock last week. I don't consider blocks to be trivial but instead disheartening and a disincentive to build an encyclopedia. I am not testing the limits of my ban. I am not like that and don't see a purpose in even trying to do such a thing. Thanks again. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉04:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): Glad to help. I know you weren't testing the limits of your topic ban; I'm still amazed there were people who thought it was a violation of your topic ban, much less an intentional one. As you can probably tell from my blanking of the page, I'm deeply unimpressed with the essay itself, but I do appreciate the way you've responded to this. Painful, I would imagine, but hopefully a learning experience too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
re: Signature
Really? The font is only 12pt which I figured to be pretty standard... seems to be the same size as the rest of the text for me? I really didn't expect this to be an issue for anyone :( Ben · Salvidrim!✉14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it looks like to you, but this is what plain text, your sig, 54129's sig and my sig look like to me, side by side; I imagine Floq is seeing the same thing. Note that your signature is so enormous it's literally doubling the line spacing around it, even if one disregards the giant text and obtrusive black box.
(tpw, but I said exactly the same thing at ARCA) The obnoxious black box doesn't help, but what jars with me is the giant font; to me, it screams out "I'm so much more important than any of you, my name needs to be larger, and if it screws up the line spacing for everything else that's a price worth paying". It's the kind of thing a brand-new editor playing around with code does, not someone who's been here as long as you. ‑ Iridescent15:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
re: "giant font" - I'm trying to understand your perspective and address the perceived issue but still, font-size is set only at 12pt.... I'm really taken aback by these issues being raised for the first time out of the blue. I've used this signature for 7 years or so, it feels as much part of me as my haircut, hence my apparent reticence to overhaul it. There was a request during my 2013 RFA to add a direct talk page linke, which I did, and there were some questions last year about the "envelope" unicode character, but obnoxious/garish criticism of the whole concept is surprising. Honestly. Not trying to be a difficult primadonna. It's meant to be contrast-enhanced (light blue/dark purple, the default windows link colors, on a white background, now that's much less contrasted). I've thrown some mockups on User:Salvidrim!/sandbox for now.... Ben · Salvidrim!✉15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
What Iri is showing is how it looks to me too. Is it possible that somehow your default text is larger? Or, from your perspective, mine is smaller? Although I doubt very much I would have changed mine... wouldn't know how to, for starters. And I did bring this up with you, possibly a year ago. Although if it looks completely different to you, I can see how you'd have brushed that off. FWIW, out of curiosity I previewed your signature with just the default font size, and the black box isn't really that annoying if the font size is the same as the text. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I remember we talked about it over e-mail, IIRC it was more about the character length in the edit window and I cleaned up to minimize that by half with more tidy formatting. Sorry if I misunderstood the issue was also with the rendering... Ben · Salvidrim!✉15:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's right, it was by email; no wonder I spent 10 minutes unsuccessfully trying to find that conversation on-wiki because I'd forgotten that. Yes, I think you did address half my concern, and I remember disengaging with the other half in frustration because you said you didn't see the problem, and it didn't occur to me that... you literally didn't actually see the problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You e-mailed me because it was during my RfB and you didn't want people to latch on to that minor quibble to oppose... hindsight is 20/20 but I can't help but to find the concern you had morbidly amusing in retrospect. Makes one wish that a stupid signature was the worst issue. ^_^" Ben · Salvidrim!✉16:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This is how it looks for me, same height and size as the text preceding it and other signatures, pretty much. I now realize that it displays much differently for you, of course from what you see I agree it's obnoxiously large and garish... deff need to find out why it does that and how to fix. cc IvanvectorBen · Salvidrim!✉15:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Salvidrim!: I'm no tech whiz, but I wonder if this could be the result of forcing a certain font size, rather than using the default. It might be fixable simply by removing "font-size:12pt" from the signature. Vanamonde (Talk)15:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The original looks to me the same as how it looks for Salv, as far as I can tell, and doesn't affect the line spacing. Smaller in the revised version. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Yes, it looks much better to me. Not great, because I'm a grump and think everyone should just use the default sig, but it no longer Screams at me. I'd say you're still in the upper quartile of annoying, but no longer in the upper 1% :) . There are easily 3 dozen people I can think of I'd like to indef block for their signatures before I set my sights on this new one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I think maybe hardcoding the font-size to make it look good to me (i.e. in my display environment) made it fuck up for people using smaller-than-11pt font sizes or smaller resolutions or lower DPI or whatever, as opposed to setting a relative or default font-size. Same kind of issue as the tweaks to column templates, removing column count in favor of relative-column-width to account for a variety of font sizes, display sizes, DPI, resolutions, etc.etc. Thanks for taking the time guys to help figure out the issue and hopefully with the text size now using the environment's default, the annoyance factor has gone way down :p Ben · Salvidrim!✉
Thanks to @Ivanvector, Nikkimaria, Salvidrim!, Pointillist, and Kephir:. You all rock. Oh, and @Valereee:, these both work for me. Kephir's does other stuff too, some of which is confusing so I'm temporarily going with Pointillist's just because I fear whatever I don't understand (although I suspect you could opt out of the other stuff). But either one does exactly what I needed them to do. One less blood pressure trigger. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"On the plus side, at least now you know that if you really want people's attention on something, you just need to title your thread "Emergency desysop of...", and at least 3 people will reply in under 3 minutes. That's useful to know."
for the curious. But you originally saw it because the edit summary (which includes the thread title) showed up on your watchlist, no? That's how I saw it, I guess I'm just assuming everyone is like me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jax 0677. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User_talk:MelanieN#March_2019 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Ritchie333. I noticed you called another editor a fuckwit, which didn't seem very unambigious, so it has been queried. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of my core principles to enquire whether you were referring to "fuckwit" to mean "A very stupid person" or "A contemptible person." If you have any questions, you can leave a message on Jimbo's talk page, where the issue will be debated to death by people who've got too much time on their hands. Meanwhile, I have found the video you requested here. Thank you. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie, to answer your question. If this obnoxious template was intended to be in any way remotely useful, then I meant "a very stupid person". If it was intended to rile me up, then I meant "a contemptible person". Ponyo's interpretation, which I wish I'd thought of, applies in either case. I don't know what their motivation was, but luckily the same word applies no matter which motivation they had. Hopefully they will not darken my door anymore, since the constraints of Section 4.5.3.b would be extremely difficult to follow under those conditions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry you ended up involved. I like to include a little humour in my talk page contributions to try and avoid people taking things personally, I clearly need to add a disclaimer in a signature for my next "tirade". Koncorde (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
If I post a brief statement here, would you be willing to proxy it to WP:AE for me? This would be keeping in line with my years-long personal policy of having zero direct interaction with a certain user. I'll admit the request is unorthodox, but I don't see it as harmful or potentially controversial. Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Joefromrandb: Yes, I'd be willing to, as long as it didn't actually address anything about that user (which, based on your whole reason for posting here, I'm sure it wouldn't). Caveats: I'm not guaranteeing it will have the same effect as you posting directly. I also, personally, wouldn't see you making a statement for the benefit of uninvolved admins reviewing the situation as a "direct interaction" with that user, tho that is of course your call not mine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It does address that user, albeit to a very limited degree. I'll post it here at some point this evening, at which point you can review it and decide whether or not you would be comfortable posting it by proxy. Incidentally, I will make it perfectly clear in the statement that I've asked you to proxy it as a means of me voluntarily avoiding any direct interaction with that user, and that it should not, by any means, be taken as any kind of endorsement of the content on your part. Still, if you decide you would rather not do it, I will understand completely. My only wish here is to continue to observe the bright line that I drew for myself years ago, and have so far been able to maintain. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Gee, I don't know about this. Either don't address him at all, or address him directly. I suspect anything helpful you have to say there can be pruned of anything related to him. But using a middleman to address him indirectly seems like the worst of both worlds, and strikes me as just as much crossing that bright line as just doing it yourself. You're still free to post it here, but know that my suspicion is that I'm going to decline to post anything related to him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, @Joefromrandb:, take a look at WP:MUTE (if you haven't already started using it). It works like a charm. Harder for me to use, being a fancy admin and all, but it could improve your experience here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the statement that you already made there goes above and beyond the brief bit of history that I had intended to share, so I'll go ahead and remove those bits from the statement and post it here shortly. Thanks. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
My statement
(Note: I am posting this at User talk:Floquenbeam and asking him to copy it to WP:AE. I have taken this unusual step for the sole purpose of continuing to, as I have for years, voluntarily refrain from any interaction with the filer of this report. It should not be taken as a slight against readers of this page by refusing to answer directly, nor should it been seen as an endorsement of the content by Floquenbeam.)
In short: mea culpa. I let my frustration get the better of me. I should have stopped after the first revert and left it to others to correct the errors I found. Going forward I will strive to do so in the future. I do feel the need to note that the complainant in the AN3 report was my counterpart in the edit war. That doesn't exonerate me, nor does it mitigate my culpability in edit-warring. Still, I have to say I find it outrageous for a user who performed three reverts within a period of several hours to show up at AN3 acting like the injured party. It's true, I broke WP:3RR and he did not. However, as far as both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's overall policy on edit-warring goes, he was every bit as guilty as I. Whatever the case, I acknowledge my part in this edit war, and pledge to strive to refrain from such behavior in the future. This is an isolated incident, occurring more than six months after I resumed editing following the ArbCom block. I don't see a new block being particularly productive, but of course, that's not for me to decide. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, don't even try because Wikipedia is serious business: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here. ~~~~}}Natureium (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Floquenbeam is a well-known member of a number of secret cabals. Of course he is going to be unblocked. This is purely pro forma. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Petra! You went to Petra? I've always wanted to see that. Was it as awesome as I imagine? (I don't know how you'd know that) By 1 September I imagine we'll be settling our oldest into college somewhere... we get the last of the accept/reject/waitlist notifications tomorrow evening, and then she (and we) have a complicated decision to make by 1 May. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Petra is awesome, but too many people are interested, served by many camels, horses, donkeys, their guides, and souvenir places. I'd close the site for all these but ... - Once you get a bit away, it's just magnificent, instead of animal scent. There are people cleaning up after the animals almost instantly, but only almost. I named the hike to Djebel Haroun (through the Petra site to the southwest, 3rd row) the highlight of the trip, while another member of the group found the crystals along the Dead Sea the most unusual. Good luck with the decision making! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Besides the Petra ones, I liked two of those especially: the "desert flowers" photo, which I thought was sarcasm or a mistaken caption until I zoomed in; and that tenacious thistle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you see what happened? You don't do adminning, so the roaring bishzilla has to suggest someone else for the job ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
That sounds a little more obnoxious than might have been intended. Maybe this Fall I’m going to need to pay closer attention to which candidates are more chill than the others. But (a) I am not going to enable 2FA, and (b) on a list of things that harm Wikipedia, wouldn’t “compromised admin account” rank about 56th? —-Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
You immediately resumed the behavior that led to the previous block. Watch it. Also, congratulations on the the AN close, very nice. Bishonen | talk16:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC).
FYI diff was after your close. it was another bizarre hostile comment, considering my user page is very easy to find. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a little borderline, since User:WanderingWanda started the ANI thread, but ultimately I don't think I see it that way. My biggest annoyance with that post is the smug "Hope you're both having a nice day". But in any case the response WW got was a lot worse. Now that it is clear WW is going to be met with "I know you are but what am I"-type insults, it wouldn't be helpful if they continued to post there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The response, notably, wasn't by Guy Macon. And I think a lot of us would take issue with the idea that a childish raspberry-blowing comment like TracyMcClark's is anywhere near as bad as having one's view that singular they (of which many mainstream style guides and other English-usage RS still disapprove) isn't the best gender-neutral-language solution get compared to labeling African-Americans with racial epithets considered offensive for two generations now. WW's post was pure character-assassination false equivalence, as well as a gravedancing and baiting attempt to re-ignite the dispute after the ANI closure. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't have said anything on Guy Macon's talk page if TracyMcClark's comment didn't pop up on my watchlist. If I see someone making negative comments about trans folks or any other folks on a talk page, sure, I'm going to drop a note saying I disagree. Maybe I could've been more tactful about it, but I'm certainly not looking for any long term feuds and don't wish either of them ill. I'm happy for Guy and Tracy to go their own way. I'd also be happy to have an earnest conversation with them about gender identity if they wanted to have one. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This re-opening is one of the more useless actions that I have seen recently, and there have been a lot of useless actions about portals to nowhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar
For finding a reasonable way to close a contentious dispute that was partly about pronouns and partly about two editors, and was partly policy and partly conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Robert. It wasn't as smooth as I would have liked, but it seems to be moving toward some kind of resolution. If everyone gives it a chance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, don't want to be a target of personal criticism, so here is a completely neutral note that this has happened. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The thread title change was fine. I'm not sure why everyone seems to be dead set on prolonging this, but I don't really see the point (nor the harm) of Guy's addition, nor of your objecting to it here, nor of QEDK's revert. (And that's just the stuff today I don't see the point of.) While it's a one-way interaction ban, please give it some breathing room. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe the reason of my revert was clear, saying "I'm not sure why everyone seems to be dead set on prolonging this" and then saying you don't see the point of why I reverted is pure contradiction. --qedk (t桜c)14:55, 8 May 2019 (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.
Additional comment about the recent ANI
Posting this here because I don't know where else I would post it (apart from Guy Macon's talk page, but he's made it clear he doesn't want to talk to me) – I want to acknowledge that while I don't think Guy Macon was acting appropriately with regard to Fæ's pronouns (which in turn, in my view, means he also wasn't acting appropriately in regard to my pronouns: as my user page notes, I also prefer they/them pronouns), I do think I was a little hotheaded throughout the process and I want to apologize for that. I should've tried opening a dialogue with Guy on his talk page before going to ANI, I should've been a little more careful and thoughtful with the wording of the ANI, and I shouldn't have posted anything to Guy's talk page afterwards without being much more thoughtful about it. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to know whether such an apology would be welcome at Guy's talk page; my guess would be "no". I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he saw it here, and you'll probably have to settle for that. FWIW, although it isn't directed at me, I appreciate the self-reflection. It's really easy to get hotheaded around here. Done it myself often enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Good close
I have just seen the final version of the AN discussion on Legacypac. I think you did an excellent job of bringing a hopelessly confused and incoherent discussion to the best close that was possible under the circumstances. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Additional comments at Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle
I intervened in one dispute related to Guy and Fae. If Fae pokes Guy with a stick, I want to know. If Fae does anything else unrelated to Guy that upsets anyone else, I do not need to know. I am not their father, prosecutor, defender, friend, or enemy. I am not the Fae admin now. You all know where each others' talk pages are, you know where ANI is, you know where ArbCom is. I'll make onegeneral comment about this; pages with diffs of alleged wrongdoing are allowed for a short while if they are being used to prepare for a potential ANI thread or ArbCom request or similar. They can't be kept around forever if an ANI thread or ArbCom request isn't forthcoming, but I believe the general consensus has been that being up for somewhere between 1 week and 1 month while it's being worked on is OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I provided a link to the related discussion of canvassing by the WiR twitter stream, started because of allegations, allegations which should be taken seriously. I do not name anyone in the AfD or make any allegations about anyone. Why would Floquenbeam need an update on every edit of mine that you do not like the look of? --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear, I see now you are running an "enemy" page against me in your userspace diff. That's not very nice. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is, you are repeatedly misrepresenting what people have said, Fæ. This is going to end up with another topic ban, I fear. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This is why [[12]], the issue had been dead for 4 days before you decided to start it up again (hell the thread over at WIR had been dead for 2 days), so all this has done is just restarted a stale drama.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
How is linking to a WiR discussion by many interested parties about the serious and damaging allegations by others of canvassing in the AfD, a discussion which has only now been completed so would be irrelevant before today, or linking someone running an enemies page about me, with false claims about me making personal attacks when the diff shows I mention nobody, going to end up with me being topic banned? Thanks for your fears for me.
Let's be clear, if there are more special user pages/enemy pages about me, or off-wiki discussions about me, I would like to see them. Now would be a great time to declare any more of this stuff going on. Thanks in advance. --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I did not say you would be, I made no such claim. Nor did I claim you made a PA against anyone (here). Nor have I had an off wiki discussions about you.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Your enemies page states "Personal attacks continue" against my name with a link to an edit of mine. That is an allegation of a personal attack against me. Being on an enemies page in your user space does not stop Wikipedia policies applying to allegations about other Wikipedians. --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Its not furtive, I have made no attempt to hide it, I will agree to delete if you if agree to make no more comments that can be seen as attacks on me (broadly construed).Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course it is "furtive", you did not ping me or tell me about it, but it is about me as your "enemy". Delete it please, without forcing me to stop editing as a pre-condition, or making more hounding claims that I am attacking you when you are instigating problems here by your choice. --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
When did I ask you to stop editing, this is exactly what peoples have been complaining about, you demand I AGF when you (lets assume good faith) make a mistake that breached policy (but was still a mistake), then misrepresent what a user has said (whilst not giving the user an AGF).Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything about enemies. It looks like a list of things someone might get together before asking for sanctions. Natureium (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
As you are complaining about edits of mine which make no mention of you, yet you appear to be reading them falsely as personal attacks, your "condition" for deleting your enemies page of "I will agree to delete if you if agree to make no more comments that can be seen as attacks on me" is wide enough to be interpreted as almost any page or discussion where you are editing. What you are doing is wrong, refusing to delete your enemies page unless I barter for your demands based on entirely undemonstrated claims of what might be "seen" by you as personal attacks, is inappropriate. Delete it please. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Not Floq, obviously, but I can tell you the boiler-plate response. It is ok if you are preparing to submit it as evidence for some sort of action in the next few days but, failing that, you should compile the information off-wiki.
Fæ, you asked above for discussions about you off-wiki. I would be surprised if there isn't something at Wikipediocracy and Reddit but I'm not subscribed to them. You seem to get "scared" about an awful lot of things and I think I've said before to you that if coming under scrutiny, on- or off-wiki, scares you so much then perhaps you should reconsider your involvement. Nothing is worth that amount of angst over a prolonged period. You do not have to be a martyr. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
That was the intent as I had expected it to continue. To be honest I found another such "report" there as well I had forgotten all about. will remove both in a few days (remind me, as I may forget again) if nothing else crops up I think is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2019 (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.
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Admin don't just make "difficult blocks", they also make difficult unblocks and difficult closes. You've been quietly taking on a lot of difficult admin tasks lately–thoughtful closes of encyclopedia-length discussions, quick responses to real-time urgent situations–and doing it in a way that shows sound judgment and a desire to do what's best for the community and the project. Thank you for the good work. Levivich15:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Another busybody here. @Writ Keeper: Isn't Nuke your program? If so, I have questions. Lately, when I use it, there's a pattern. First, it takes a long time and then comes back with an error. Second, I reclick, at which point it takes a medium-long time and comes back with a list. Why? Two other related-to-each-other questions. First, what does "recently created" (or whatever the language is) mean? And, second, why does it sometimes delete older ones and not delete newer ones? I know I should give you examples, but that would make it much harder for me and much easier for you. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
You're talking about Special:Nuke? No, that's not me, that's an official Mediawiki thing, IIRC. Let's give poor Floq's email address a break and take it to my talk page. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
You mean that Floq has his Preferences set to e-mail him every time there's a post to this page?? Personally, I don't even like the fact that my Talk page link lights up. It's always interrupting me when I'm in the middle of something else. Then there are the editors who post to my Talk page, and then make multiple additional posts sprucing up their original post. Aargh.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
To fully annoy Bbb23 (as punishment for adding yet more notifications to my talk page yesterday), we need to actually ping him. Like so: @Bbb23:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
[Bishzilla breathes a puff of atomic deathray at the little Bbb23 from close range. Looks at smoldering remains with some concern. Stuffs them in pocket.] Oops. Feel better, little user! bishzillaROARR!!pocket19:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC). (See how well Zilla gadget work?)
Egggsackly! You should put the notice at the top of this page in a multi-colored banner magnified by your usual factor.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I could require people to notify me when there isn't an ANI thread involving me. Failure to do so punishable by siccing Zilla on them. Well, asking Bishonen to sic Zilla on them; I wouldn't want to overstate my influence in that area. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Bishonen don't scare me none. Takes a lot more than an inflatable bathtub toy to singe my hair (she's not the only one who can mix metaphors). Besides, she's always calling me little (not true, I've gained weight) and young (not true, I'm two days older than two days ago).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Isanae: There was nothing inherently wrong opening the thread you opened; there were clearly problems with what appeared at the time to be a new account, you tried to talk to them first, and there are few other places besides ANI to bring them up. My unhappiness is more with the several drive-by commenters who thought it appropriate to mock someone who's been helping out for a long time - after it became obvious they were a long-term good faith editor finding it harder and harder to be useful. As someone closer to Jerzy's age than the median Wikipedian's age, and as someone who finds my mind is not as sharp as it was 10 years ago - and can extrapolate what it will be like if that continues into the future - I found it insensitive and cruel. Not intentionally cruel, perhaps, but the cruelty was an unimportant by-product of saying something clever about "spouting nonsense" (well, I guess that was you), and "I-forgot-my-password alias", and "get off on what they apparently consider erudite banter", and "NOTHERE". ArbCom is imperfect, but at least they don't have a history of publicly shaming someone after they've read this and this.
So to the extent that it sounded like I think you in particular did something wrong by opening the thread, no that's not what I meant, and I apologize if I was unclear.
And I hope I'm smart enough to retire completely before I get to that point, so the pack doesn't turn on me without a word of thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Because I did not know Jerzy, I could not link the two accounts. I was also unaware of the message on WJBscribe's talk page at first because it was from an unrelated IP. When I read parts of it, I only saw the same kind of language as before and could not understand its meaning. As for the message on their own talk page, it was written only one hour before you closed the thread. I understand your intentions, but I think your close message is overly harsh.
In any case, I had no intention to be clever nor to mock, but I see now that my choice of words was poor. Had I understood circumstances better, the tone of my report would have been different. I will make sure to avoid this type of language in the future. Thank you for elaborating. Isa (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, we'll see. All they have to do is post the same thing again and I'll have egg all over my face. But thanks much for the kind words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
They are twice warned. If they are insufferable, then it will be cured. Voila.
I limited the edit to less than 4 minutes, and you deleted it in short order. Nobody was asleep at the switch. 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Block evasion
Hi there, do I understand correctly you do some IP and range blocking to address block evasion? Would you mind looking into recent edit warring at User talk:Awilley? Thanks in advance. R2 (bleep) 21:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Re:this despite my general nitpickery (stick-in-the-muddery?), you're free to move any of my comments or correct any typos or whatever whenever :) Also, for range blocks just go here copy and paste the IPs in question in (it can include User: in front of it) and it will tell you want the range is. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Aaack! Don't tell me about range blocks here on my talk page! Bishonen watches this page, and now she's going to come here again and make fun of me for being scared to make them! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Better to be afraid of them than overconfident... I used to always have Katie make them for me after I passed RfA. Then she became an arb and was around less, so I figured out how to do them. I'm just waiting for her to get off ArbCom so I can make her do them again ;) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Katie is going to take a long vacation on a beach with drinks with tiny umbrellas when she's done with this...stuff. However, I will dial in just to make fun of Floq. ;-) Katietalk21:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Ha! You know it will never be completely done. Someone will hire you a new assistant, and it will all go to hell in a handbasket. Or cricket bat. One or the other. Risker (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Didn't get the reference, sorry. Video games in the way they're thought of now, particularly RPGs, are after my time, so I've never really developed an interest. Before that sounds too elitest, I'll admit to having been addicted in my youth to even lamer arcade games. Pretty much every single day after school. But something like Fallout? No, no idea.
I disagree with the email but won't respond in detail. It is not a perfect analogy but I'm reminded of this. I appreciate you're trying to help, so no hard feelings or anything, but I disagree and don't want to get dragged into a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, I’m slightly younger than Oshwah and I didn’t get the reference, though that’s likely because I stopped caring about video games in undergrad after I left my Xbox 360 at home. Never got back into them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Slightly younger than Oshwah? Do we know exactly how old Oshwah is? Can we please have baby pictures so we can compare hair styles? This all sounds like Laugh-in to me - on oh so many levels.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23 - HA! Surprisingly, my hair was straight and normal like everyone else's up until Middle School. Then, it started curling just like you'd see in a typical "Jewfro". After High School, it just... started... doing its own thing. I don't even know what you'd call the hair style in my photo on my user page... it's just... Oshwah hair? XD ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)18:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23 - Ohhh, Eric Andre... yes sir, indeed... :-) Call me strange or one of those "weird people", but I find his show on Adult Swim to be hilarious (except the first season - those episodes weren't that great). ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)20:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, Floquenbeam. :-) All I wanted you to do was hear me out and give it a thought. I wasn't "expecting" you do anything outside what you were willing to do, nor was I expecting you to discuss or justify your reasons for not agreeing. Obviously, if I followed up with, "What?!! Why? You must discuss this and explain!" - it would send a completely different message than what I'm trying to say here. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)18:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
what was going on?
I just was removing vandalism and came across that was he threatening me ? my first time with that kind of situation was kind of lost with that Jack90s15 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
There was an article with some pretty dubious BLP-violating information.
An editor gutted the article with an imperfect edit summary
I presume you thought this was vandalism and reverted (adding back dubious BLP-violating info, presumably by accident)
They removed it again
You reverted again and warned them on their talk page for removing sourced info (understandable, but not really appropriate in this case)
They replied, saying that the police had been notified (presumably to track down who added the BLP-violating info in the first place) and asking you not to revert again
I noticed this, removed the BLP violations, and left a note on their talk page that they need to be aware of our NLT policy, and noting you are probably not who they are reporting to the police.
The take-away is:
People should clearly explain what they're doing in edit summaries
People who are doing anti-vandal work need to pay close attention to what they're reverting. It isn't a race.
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
Regarding Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram: throwing yourself under the bus is both brave and understandable, but this may not be the right bus. What happens if Fram diffuses tensions by agreeing not to edit WP until the present crisis is resolved, in exchange for an unblock? What happens if Jimbo, or the board, or someone else steps in and puts things on hold? If there are just a few casualties (such as you) and then there's a sudden lull, then maybe everything will turn out fine ... or, maybe, to make a point, the WMF will insist that the casualties stay dead. Food for thought. (Feel free to delete this message if you don't want the drama spilling over onto your talk page.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I hesistate to make this comparison, because this is many orders of magnitude less important. I am not equating them and me, just trying to explain the general point. But I do recall many people thought that sitting at lunch counters where you weren't welcome was needlessly disruptive and provocative, and that discussion and persuasion where what was really needed. I really, really do not want to be part of a system where "the WMF [gets to] insist that the casualties stay dead". So if I'm permanently desysopped, I wouldn't want to be a sysop anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Heh, I don't know if you know this, but I've lived in or near the lunch counter city for 30 years now. I'll support whatever decisions you choose to make; I just want to point out that there's a whole range of provocative actions you could take as an admin short of unblocking. (I can think of a couple but I want to stay above the fray, for now.) Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that unblocking now would deprive the WMF of the opportunity to right this themselves, and push them into a defensive stance on the issue. I think the better part of valor would be to wait 24 hours to see if Jimbo or others in the Foundation come around to this first. bd2412T15:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I also think that rushing to action is counterproductive. We should remember that while as volunteers we can speak and act whenever we think it is right to do so, WMF employees can't always respond on the same basis. Presumably they will need to have discussions among multiple people, review of any replies, etc., and that can take some time. This is especially true if there is any sensitive information involved that requires extra scrutiny of what they say and to whom. It seems foolish that they weren't better prepared for pushback, but given that it seems they weren't, we should expect some lag in their reaction. --RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
One of the issues I have with these arguments is what happens to Fram's reputation. Waiting for a reply allows doubt to creep in, people to think, "well maybe they were right, maybe the reason for the ban is something so egregious it warrants swift action and zero communication." I don't get the sense that's what happened here but instead that one or more people snitched to the WMF because of hurt feelings and the WMF felt the need, now, suddenly, to uphold civility issues. But we can't know until the WMF responds. In the meantime, per community norms, only the en.wp community can enact an en.wp ban and desysop. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Wanted to make sure you saw this post in response to your question about what arbcom knew - not that there's much information in it, but of course while I was posting at ACN, Fram's comment was cross-posted to BN and everybody went to look over there.
Also, I'll be in a meeting at noon San Francisco time, and if all hell breaks loose then, it'll be really hard to get any work done! Please schedule your drama at a more convenient time, such as when I can get popcorn. (I'm kidding, but I'm also hoping we can take some time to sort out what exactly is going on without more drama, and less than two hours from now, while a lot of us are doing our day jobs, is a short deadline. I realize "I'd be sad if you got desysopped and I could have maybe done something about the situation but I had to go to a meeting about molecules" is an extremely self-centered way to think about this situation, but I haven't had time yet this morning to figure out what's going outside of my own brain. Incidentally, I did miss my bus..... Anyway, maybe give it till tomorrow, at least?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
All hell need not break loose; WMF can choose what to do next. And I imagine the meeting will be Fram-centric no matter what I do. No, I'm resolved to wait only until the time I grudgingly agreed to wait earlier. Enjoy your molecule meeting, though. I wish my real life meetings were about molecules, they'd have a much higher chance of being interesting then. Which should give you an idea about how interesting my meetings are... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You made me post from my phone, which I hate! Yeah, the problem is that the meeting is interesting; I wouldn't mind so much if you were distracting me from a meeting about TPS reports (oh good, I typed "TPS" and predictive text knew what I was going for). I've always been impressed with your willingness to go ahead and get shit done, in cases where I'd still be hemming and hawing. I can't say "you guys should wait because there's significant progress happening behind the scenes" but I can say "I dont think this is likely to prompt any new progress, and might actually reinforce some bad ideas some people have". Opabinia externa (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
We’ve had plenty of disagreements but I really valued your approach here. Sincerely. That WMF pop in with minutes to go with another boilerplate is unbelievable and insulting. Thank you, on this instance, for upholding the real values of Wikipedia, I will never forget it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for taking your principled stance, which apparently at least achieved some transparency and hopefully accountability too. EllenCT (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree completely with the sentiments expressed by the editors who have already posted on your talk page. Thank you many times over Floq. MarnetteD|Talk19:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Going against the opinion of those one might see as superiors is an action that ought to be merited with plaudits. Please accept this barnstar as but one of many. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
You are an outstanding credit to the world we work in, and, for setting this precedent Wikipedia for as long as it survives will remain indebted to you. Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Good move. Brave, possibly foolhardy, but if you have to go through RfA again I'll be adding a strong support for you doing the right thing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
That was a very brave move you made, even if it doesn't work out, you have shown yourself as a very courageous individual. Kosack (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Support from me as well. We'll see whether WMF is willing to declare war on the community over this and possibly whether the community is willing to stand up for itself.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, another award. I know you're being flooded with these. I appreciate your willingness to potentially sacrifice yourself for the good of the wiki, though, and I thought that deserved a reward. Thanks for your amazing adminning. -A lad insane(Channel 2)21:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Got you a beer. I'm actually in a secret cabal, and will block you in a half an hour from a never-before used WMF account, so get ready for that. Don't worry--I won't explain why. In the meantime, enjoy. Thanks Floq. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I trust Drmies won't mind my butting in here, but I hope you, Floq, don't mix the beer with the tea – might make for too many bathroom trips. If, given the situation, you'd like me to get you an antacid or a sedative, just let me know. Anyway, thanks for standing up for what's right. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I know, Another damn barnstar- but I've been meaning to give you this for a while. Consistently, I've seen you as the most level headed, brave, and genius editors on the site. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸02:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor
In addition to the bravery and forthrightness noted by many above, you have handled this with an inspirational level of goof humor, given the circumstances. bd2412T02:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
On a side note, there are several seats on the Foundation Board up for reelection next year. Food for thought. bd2412T02:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And thanks as well. If the WMF desysops you for undoing an office action, you can count my vote for your re-sysopping RfA. I don;t believe it will come to that, though. In any case, thanks for acting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean you don't think a RFA will be necessary? You could be right, the way I read the WMF's statement, we're free to reinstate Floquenbeam after 30 days without a RFA if we desire. The same I think we can with Fram after their ban expires or is removed. Nil Einne (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Everyone is applauding you, Floq, but you must have known there would be repercussions to your undoing of an Office action. I see it was more important for you to stand against an unfair (or at least, unexplained) WMF action than be concerned about your own status. While that is admirable, I guess I'm selfish because I don't want Wikipedia to lose you as an admin. Personally, while WMF has been less than transparent, I think we don't know all of their reasons but that is my opinion because I've only made my way reading 1/2 of the page where this all has been discussed.
I just didn't want to it to get lost in all of the congratulatory messages here the bigger fact that we don't have you to rely on as an administrator, and that is a loss to the entire community. Maybe we're at a point where you don't care about that anymore but I (and I'm sure I'm not alone) DO care and I hope that in the days to come, we can all welcome you back to the admin community.
I'm pessimistic that this situation will not be resolved to the community's satisfaction because we are just volunteers and the WMF is a wealthy nonprofit corporation. But, at some point, I want to see you back on the boards, setting editors straight, exiling trolls and offering your no-nonsense but always on target opinion that comes from years of working on this enormous project. We'll be here whenever you want to return to adminning. Peace. LizRead!Talk!01:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I would just point out that there’s more to being an administrator than a toolset and Floquenbeam’s value to the project shines the brightest when they’ve elected not to press advanced buttons. (Would performing so-called “non-admin closures” be considered evasion? And did the person behind the curtain not have the courtesy to formally notify Floquenbeam of their action? –xenotalk03:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
There's more than being an admin. Like integrity, doing what's right, being willing to sacrifice for the little guy, etc. Floq gets this and gets my utmost respect for following through on a proposed action. When I started editing there were a handful of WMF staffers. How did they get to be wealthy? Not by churning out featured article after featured article for free or for wielding the mop, doing the dirty work. Hat tip to you Floq. I wanted to give you a lovely barnstar thingie, but can't think of the right one. Anyway, be well. Victoria (tk) 01:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your courage; you have our support, whatever happens. What a fucked-up place this has turned out to be. All the best, Miniapolis01:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
There are never good reasons to compromise on obvious truth. Thanks for sticking to facts. Fæ (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
I don't know if you know, but you've been listed at User:Swarm/recall#Users who can simply request the removal of my admin rights since I was promoted in 2011. I've long since forgotten why I felt that you belonged in that list in 2011. But you have reminded me why you were one of the users I trusted and respected most in those earlier days. MelanieN stole my sentiments—you are a hero. I've never had that thought about anyone throughout my career here, and I quite genuinely mean that right now. Don't doubt that you did the right thing. If a new RfA will be required, it will be my honor to wholeheartedly support, if not nominate you (though I know the line for co-noms will be disgustingly long). Thanks for all you've done and especially for what you did today. Best, ~Swarm~{sting}07:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I was going to give you another Defender of the Wiki barnstar, but then I thought which would I rather have, a barnstar or a brownie and realized there was no contest! Doug Wellertalk11:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Doug, but I think brownies are overrated. Plus, it's just one, and I am sure Floq does his thing with support from the family. Plz consider leaving a full-size Princess cake... Drmies (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Proxying
Hey Floq. I don't do barnstars, but you have earned 12 points. Spend them wisely. While proxying for a blocked user is of course a no no, you are not blocked, just temporarily de-adminned, therefore if you find any admin tasks what need doing over the next 29 days and 14 hours or so, feel free to ping me. Fish+Karate10:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Same – in the way that any editor can inform any admin of admin actions they feel need to be taken. bd2412T11:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't say much that wasn't already said, but thank you for sticking your neck out. And if the WMF should decide to get annoyed about your resysop request and give you the boot entirely, you do have my email address and are welcome to use it any time you may like. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A barn for you
You don't seem to need any more barnstars as you have plenty now, so instead I'd like to give you this barn to keep them all in (or hang them on, or whatever Americans do with them). It's just one of the old barns that's been hanging round the back of the Boing! estate for years, and you obviously have more use for it than I do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
First, I'm really embarrassed about the mass of messages above. I mean thanks, but... geez. Anyone who can't stand a month without the admin bit is a little too attached to it anyway. I was fairly sure I'd get a slap on the wrist; the person/people who unblock Fram after this are much braver than I was.
I should have let Bish go first after all; while it might be bluster, WMF is making it sound like they'll deal more harshly with anyone else who unblocks Fram. Wikipedia will be worse off without her than without me, especially if she's not an admin for a long time while I'm only in the doghouse for a month. Bish is a grownup and can do whatever she wants - pretty sure I know what that will be once she wakes up - but I will certainly not be seeking to regain the admin bit until everyone who is desysopped for unblocking Fram is resysopped (if they want to be). Whether it's just Bish, or a half dozen admins, or all the admins; it isn't up to me anymore.
I will say to whoever wrote the WMFOffice message about my desysop, the insinuation that I might be tempted to evade this is deeply insulting wait, no, it's deeply puzzling. How, exactly, would I go about "attempting to evade the sanctions announced against me today"? Unless you mean using User:Aardvark Floquenbeam to resysop myself. OK, fair warning, I won't do that. {{eyeroll emoji}} --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Allow me to quote: "The same applies for any attempts made by Floquenbeam to evade the sanctions announced against them today". --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This day reminds me of the opening line of "Tale of Two Cities"...
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
(edit conflict)Yeah, you're right, the full sentence is "The same applies for any attempts made by Floquenbeam to evade the sanctions announced against them today or by attempts by others to override that sanction" and I kinda conflated both into "resysopping Floq" since the only attempt to evade from you I could think of was "requesting resysopping". :p Ben · Salvidrim!✉02:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I also read that and I have no idea what they meant. I was going to ask about it. Unless they imposed some hidden sanctions other than the desysop, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. To my knowledge, "evading sanctions" by someone who is not blocked would only mean violating some kind of topic or interaction ban that was implemented. Enigmamsg02:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
They said Floq shouldn't "attempt evading". My reading is "Floq don't try to ask/encourage others to resysop you, and neither should the rest of the community encourage or perform a resysopping". Ben · Salvidrim!✉02:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think going a month without the admin bit is a big deal, but there are repercussions to being desysopped. This is the same as being desysopped by ArbCom (well, ArbCom is part of en.wiki and WMF is not) in the sense that the bureaucrats view it as being 'under a cloud', so a new RfA is required to regain the bit. RfAs are always a gamble, which is why there are so few of them. I would think yours would fare better because the community overwhelmingly is against the WMF's interference, but I am not aware of any RfA being successful after an involuntary desysop (feel free to inform me otherwise). Enigmamsg03:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I still am not aware of any, as Sarek was not involuntarily desysopped. He resigned and then went for RfA once (no consensus) and got it on the second try. It also could be argued that he didn't even need an RfA as ArbCom actually voted on him and decided to admonish him rather than desysopping him. I suspect if they had voted for a desysop, he never would've passed an RfA. Enigmamsg03:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I will note that the RfA you mention was 13 years ago, before the modern era of RfA, and I'm stunned it was closed as successful at 61%. Substantial opposition even back then, and in the modern era, it'd be worse. Editing to add: It appears he did not actually pass RfA. Taxman decided to overrule the community in order to give him back his bit. A bizarre case. link to announcement. So we still don't have a single instance of someone passing an RfA after being desysopped. Enigmamsg03:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that, should it come to another RfA over this, Floq will end up setting a new record for number and percentage of supports on it. Hell, he's got my vote and I've never gone to the shithole that is RfA before. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I am pretty certain it will come to another RfA, FWIW. Personally, I would set my feelings about any admins aside and support any and all of them if they were desysopped by the WMF, simply because the WMF should not have the authority to do what they are currently doing (a "hostile takeover", if you will). Enigmamsg03:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, once this mess is finally sorted (and I sincerely hope it is) they should re-sysop you. If not then, as above, the RFA is guaranteed. Solidarity and all that. GiantSnowman08:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You've managed turn the fourth userbox on your userpage into reality! Are congrats in order? Certainly feels like a deserving occasion... Mélencron (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Having thought more about it, I have come to the conclusion that I strongly disagree with you and believe that you acted inappropriately due to a lack of information. However, I think that we all got swept up into a mob mentality and you were not alone in wanting this action. I am ashamed of my role in this mob and hope that others will reconsider their positions. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the alternative? The WMF has no interest in explaining themselves and they wish to turn en.wiki into their personal fiefdom. Enigmamsg16:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I knew you were going to do it because you said you were going to do it
I'll just tag along on this thread. Thanks for doing this—not the unblocking-Fram bit specifically, but for having the courage of your convictions. The bottom line is that there are worse things than losing the admin bit, and it's vital to have an internal set of moral red lines. Thank you for providing an example of principle in action. (Feeling a bit of shame and the urge for self-justification, I'll add I've given a lot of thought over the years to the exact sets of circumstances under which I'd give up my admin bit and/or leave the project. For me personally, Mt. Fram isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, and I understand that may lessen your respect for me. I do have my own set of internal red lines, though, and I respect you hugely for standing up for yours). Also, if you'd like the password to my account to do some administrative work over the next month, let me know. I'm not here much anyway these days. MastCellTalk17:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Aha! Now I understand how WMFOffice thinks I might try to "evade my sanctions". No, thanks: I don't think I could handle suddenly having everyone thinking I was you, and therefore knew what I was talking about.
I wonder, though, if a refusal to use {{fbdb}} is a hill you're willing to die on? WMFOffice is watching you! And my first impression is they don't really have a sense of humor, or a sense of perspective....
I don't think of this as "Mt. Fram", which I would not really be willing to die on either. I think of this as "Mt. Potential Corruption". WMFOffice chose, as their very first target using a dramatically expanded scope, someone who relentlessly criticized WMF actions, who apparently made a friend of a WMF board member uncomfortable, and who was rude to people in power. If this was part of an initiative with broad support, and was transparent, with clear criteria and the right to appeal, and local consensus was respected, and Fram was like the 10th person banned, I wouldn't be upset. Some people above who've given me barnstars might be upset about how supportive of something like that I might actually be. But this isn't protecting people being harassed; this is removing a gadfly.
Redeemable for a real one if you're ever in the neighbourhood. Every admin action carries with it the chance of a desysop. You did what you thought was right, and that's all anyone can do. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Another one for the pile
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For doing what you thought was right, at great personal risk (well, as far as Wikipedia goes), and against the advice of many intelligent people. Whether they would admit it or not, WMFOffice clearly responded because of your statement of intent, and it seems likely at this point that they would not have responded at all otherwise.
We might not necessarily agree on all the details and maybe it won't even turn out that it was the right thing to do, but you believed it was and you stuck to your convictions. We should have more administrators with that fortitude. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Meh, my opinion is more or less worthless. It looks like they finally smartened up and decided to just wait it out, with no further reblocks or desysops. People will remain outraged for a week and then get distracted by something else. I trust Doc James' intention, but kind of doubt his ability to get real info out of them. All they have to do is drag the process out until the outrage dissipates. But thanks, yes, at least I did what I thought was right. So there's that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I think there will be a substantial amount of interest as to whether a resolution has been reached following the meeting on the 14th. I don't believe "ignore them and they'll go away" is a viable strategy on this one. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It's worked every other time something like this has happened. That's why everyone from Jimbo down advises patience, so it'll be forgotten. Which it will. EricCorbett22:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Spot on analysis Floq. We haven't seen eye to eye on a few different things, probably my defiencies more then anything but credit where credit is due. The right thing in the face of stupidity is painful but very necessary. I anticipate you receiving the tools back soon and you'd have my support if you do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow!
The Tank Man Award
You did it. You put yourself out there and you got their attention. And maybe, just maybe, even a start toward a resolution. You are a hero today. MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Well now you're just embarrassing me. On a good day I have 1/100,000 the courage that guy had. Please don't say stuff like that. I mean, thanks, of course, but please don't. Some might interpret that as evidence my motivation is personal attention-seeking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Curious, but which edit originally changed the image from the Tank Man to the current one for fair use? Enigmamsg16:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Shortly after I posted the picture of the Tank Man (which totally illustrated what I wanted to say), The Rambling Man realized that it was fair use for the Tank Man article only, and replaced it with a generic tank. Pity, but he was right of course. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I see no valid reason for the removal of your administrator rights, which were granted to you by the enwiki community. ArbCom has not mandated their removal. I have accordingly restored them. Fuller reasons for my actions can be found at WP:BNWJBscribe(talk)23:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, WJBscribe. That is an honourable thing to do, and dare I say braver than the unblocking I did. Which will no doubt be punished. I assume the vandal blocking I am about to do counts as "evasion of sanctions", so I'd better be quick. All the best to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Peanut gallery comment: I applaud this action, and hope that the blowback from the Foundation will be minimal. If you need to stand for RfB again, you are assured of my vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Engvar
Whew what times we live in Floq. In an attempt to bring a small amount of levity to the day I'll mention that WJBscribe has a user box mentioning that they live in London so any post on their talk page should spell it honourable :-) If my joke falls flat and is annoying you please remove it post haste. MarnetteD|Talk23:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
General note that I hope people who have posted above will see
I just don't have the energy to reply individually. I'm glad I unblocked Fram. I acknowledged before I did it that I'd be sad to be desysopped, but at peace with it, and I am: sad yet at peace. Still, can't say I'm motivated right now to be as active as I would have to be to reply to each of you. Plus I'm a little embarrassed at the attention and some of the more over-the-top phrasing. But I don't want it to look like I don't appreciate the kind words and thoughts. Especially when I reply to some people and not others. That's mostly a reflection on whether I happened to be doing something at the very moment I got the orange bar, or if I saw something particularly funny or raising an interesting question. So thanks everybody. I do appreciate it, whether it looks that way or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
LOL. There's apparently a rate limit in clicking the "thanks" button. Now even the MediaWiki software is sanctioning me. Patience, it says I just have to wait a few minutes. I'll get there.! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that if you're forced to go through another RfA, should you choose/agree to do that, that would in my view constitute a "cruel and unnecessary" punishment given the state of RfA. The WMF's view on RfA is comical, or it would be if it wasn't taken so seriously by those who ought to know better. EricCorbett22:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
My current thinking on that, subject to change, is that I won't put myself thru that. As I said elsewhere, I'm too old for that shit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
p.s. regarding something I saw you say elsewhere, I'd have done exactly the same thing whether or not Fram was an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I know you would. And one of the reasons I wouldn't have been an admin for long myself if I'd ever been given the tool set is that I'd have done exactly the same as you did. I fundamentally believe that you have to do what's right, and bugger the consequences. Your heart tells you what's "right", and so long as nobody gets hurt it's all good. EricCorbett22:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Would you have if the ban had not been enwiki-and-one-year only to tip you off? I've been having a hard time reconciling the difference between my reactions to Fram's ban - even before he started posting his side on Commons - and Ktr101's a few years ago, where I just accepted without question that the WMF must have had a proper reason. —Cryptic22:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a good question. I'd forgotten about that. But wasn't he an admin too? (looks) No, I guess not. A clerk or something? Anyway. I sort of recall that happening, and I think I might have only found out after the fact; I wasn't terribly active in August. I think my reaction at the time was "Wow, really? I would never have expected that", but otherwise yes, I did just assume they knew what they were doing. Did they ever say anything on-wiki about what happened? I guess the difference here is that Fram is a known gadfly where the WMF is concerned, so I was more skeptical than I would otherwise have been right off the bat. Plus, once I saw it was en.wiki only, all possible legit reasons for the ban disappeared in my mind. Then, he posted a believable explanation of what happened on Commons. If they had just globally banned him, I'm not quite sure what I would be doing right now. Probably would have assumed he did something off-wiki and done nothing, to be honest. Probably shouldn't say that in public, might give them ideas. And it makes me look gullible. But I can honestly say it wasn't related to sysop vs non-sysop. More familiarity vs. non-familiarity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've said what Cryptic said to multiple WMF people, and been given a response along the lines of "You're just looking for something to complain about." That may be the most distressing part of this whole thing to me. They haven't listened to multiple WMF-friendly editors/sysops/functionaries who have said this. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Tony, I'm especially interested that you said this. Earlier, you had been making the case that your experience with WMF made you trust that they would only act for good reason. I've been unable to reconcile that with what I've seen of their (non)responses to the community. Now, it sounds to me like you are having second thoughts, and that strikes me as quite significant. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Tony can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he said that specifically about the people at T&S, not about the WMF in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's right. But I also think that the approach taken by T&S is very much at the center of the controversy here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I do trust T&S, who, despite what people think given the current events, are usually very competent and act in a professional way. I was more talking about people who are uninvolved with T&S but are other Wikimedia staffers/contractors and community members. Having worked in a non-profit in the past, I can certainly understand the circle the wagons mentality with angry volunteers. At the same time, there are legitimate criticisms that can be made about the situation, even if the reason for the ban is ultimately correct. I can't say that since I haven't seen the totality of what they have. What I can say is that testing out new powers you have given yourself on one of the most high profile sysops on the largest project was a bad judgement call, and that in all likelihood, if there had been a global lock we wouldn't be discussing this now. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Trust is built up by experience of conflict, communicativeness over differences, and readiness to examine one's own motives. Someone thoughtlessly accused the 'community' reaction of support for Floq's, and Bishonan's actions, as 'mob' obsequiousness. Absurd. I found myself nodding in agreement with remarks all coming from admins with a different profile but sharing one trait - they had in the past sanctioned me:Seraphimblade's comments in particular were very cogent, but Sandstein, Weller and others as well etc. - These things are not personal, and that so many people who, as editors, might find themselves disagreeing on this or that, found common ground on a common principle, was deeply refreshing. We spend a significant amount of time on the unpaid sweatily banausic craftsmanship of actually writing this encyclopedia. If someone in the group - I don't know Fram from a bar of soap - is sanctioned after secret deliberations in Das Schloss, without the right of challenge and response - on a charge of the kind that we in the lower spheres have ample democratic mechanisms for resolving - then protest is not only normal, but exigent. The principle asserted by the ethereal echelons - whose prose by the way exemplifies exquisitely the ugliest style of hauteurish bureaucrapese - is Bushian, an assertion of executive privilege, which as everyone knows, turns out in its exercise to be myopic in its hieratic opacity. Myopic reminds me of μύωψ (múops) 'gadfly'. No democracy can, since Socrates' speech in the Apology, thrive without them:
For if you put me to death, you will not easily find another, who, to use a rather absurd figure, attaches himself to the city as a gadfly to a horse, which, though large and well bred, is sluggish on account of his size and needs to be aroused by stinging. I think the god fastened me upon the city in some such capacity, and I go about arousing, (προσκείμενον τῇ πόλει ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὥσπερ ἵππῳ μεγάλῳ μὲν καὶ γενναίῳ, ὑπὸ μεγέθους δὲ νωθεστέρῳ καὶ δεομένῳ ἐγείρεσθαι ὑπὸ μύωπός τινος, οἷον δή μοι δοκεῖ ὁ θεὸς ἐμὲ τῇ πόλει προστεθηκέναι τοιοῦτόν τινα, ὃς ὑμᾶς ἐγείρων καὶ πείθων καὶ ὀνειδίζων ἕνα ἕκαστον )
This was a case of unexplained performative death (albeit subject to redemption after the expiry of a year) executed on one of a vast group. You lose the warrant to waffle on about the Wikipedia 'community' if any of its members can be summarily sentenced in Star Chamber rituals, without recourse, and justify the measure by asserting that no one can protest the action taken. You also, collaterally, undermine the trust the very office vaunts itself as defending. Whatever the secret 'intelligence' behind the decision, there are obvious mechanisms which would allow the general arbitrating body which evaluates broader conflicts and assays innuendoes and assertions about editors' behavior to handle cases like this, without imperiling the reputation of this collective endeavor as a unique experiment in volunteer-based encyclopedic construction. The politics of wikipedia as a social experiment are profoundly democratic and had not Floq and Bish taken the last resort of risking their administrative rights to assert that, I think many would have read this episode as a dangerous breach in the principle of trust on which their participation is grounded.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't go searching for them (I probably should), but whenever I stumble across a long post by you, @Nishidani:, I rub my hands together in anticipation of what I'm about to read. I know it's going to be good. That was elegantly stated, and a perfect distillation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
WMFOffice, Nishandi’s post above should lend insight into why a large and varied segment of the community feels undermined by your recent actions and the manner in which they were taken and communicated. Please read it with care. –xenotalk12:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Asking they/he/she/whatever is controlling that account to read anything at all is a bit optimistic, let alone with care. Enigmamsg16:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
When you were given the choice between protecting your titles and privileges and advocating for the community, you chose the latter. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm a reporter at BuzzFeed News and I'd like to speak with you about the Fram situation for a story I'm considering. If you have a moment, I'm joe.bernstein@buzzfeed.com or [redacted phone number]. Sorry for the inelegant way of reaching out to you — but I wasn't sure how to otherwise!
I'm Floq's publicist. He has of course received several lucrative offers from journalists, theater directors, movie directors, etc. Indeed, he is currently considering a multi-zillion dollar offer to write a play called Long Day's Journey into Fram. We'll get back to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, you goofball. I've already spoken to a reporter, and would be happy to speak to another. I'll email in a bit. That is, as long as the National Enquirer doesn't get to me first, and pay me money for exclusive rights, just to bury the story for a powerful friend.... Bbb23, please look into why it's taking so long for them to contact me while I talk to this nice young man? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, and Fram too. You'll be relieved to learn I kind of assumed this wasn't love at first sight, so I'm not particularly crushed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Based on your comments at the top of the page, I'm considering blocking you as NOTHERE, ALMOSTNOTHERE, and/or/but INCOUNTENANCE. This is your final warning (until the next warning, which may not be placed HERE).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Same cabal - with a new member it seems - thanking you for a clear statement about not wanting to serve a certain system. I remember the last time well that I debated with myself to stay or not (2012). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
It's Juneteenth already? Thanks Gerda, not beaming too much these days about Wikipedia, but will keep beaming in real life wherever possible (real life going much better than WP....)--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
What I am too naive to understand: we have a concept WP:BRD, - when you make a bold edit, and it's contested, you revert and discuss. The bold ban was contested (a lot, I'd say). Why were those who made it not polite enough to revert and discuss?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, WMF is not bound by local rules or policies or ethics or manners. They don't do BRD because there is nothing forcing them to do so. Please don't ping Jan here; he has made it clear he is not interested in actual communication, and my talk page is not a good place for his further empty statements (seasoned with the occasional outright lie). He has made it abundantly clear that English Wikipedia can sod off. It's basically down to Jimbo and Doc James, one of whom is only interested in making this all go away quietly, and the other seems interested in honesty, but is only 1/11th of the board and won't be able to do anything himself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
How can I unping? All these other pages are so noisy already. - Ok, bottom line: you and I are no friends of Fram (I have multiple reasons) but find the silencing of him not in the spirit of the community we want to serve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Well yes, exactly. I see Fae (who is also certainly no friend of Fram) is also saying much the same thing. If you, Fram, Fae, and I can all agree on something, it pretty much has to be true! --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
... only that truth doesn't matter here. Musing further: any person having caused such an uproar would probably be ashamed enough to revert, but some "office" has no shame. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
For those who won't read to the end of the lead: "about alienation, unresponsive bureaucracy, the frustration of trying to conduct business with non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems, and the futile pursuit of an unobtainable goal", - exactly what I thought after the infoboes case, and again now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Far better than I hoped - which is more than I could have imagined
I dropped in to see if a few people I respected back in the day were still around. Mark me very impressed; principles are the stuff of hero(in)es. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
LHvU! Always good to see you haven't forgotten your password. Thanks for the kind words; but I thinks everyone around here, including you, is kind of overusing the word "hero". I'll modestly accept "principled" with my world-famous good grace, but "heroes" risk more than a sysop bit on a website.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
You can have principles, and not be a hero(ine), but you cannot be a hero(ine) without having principles. You, my friend, have principles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Nice seeing you back LHvU. I completely agree with your statements. Floq is a great admin and a person of great intellect and integrity. Exactly the type of person we need when cultures clash. Dr.K.22:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
A comment
Hi Floq. I previously quoted Community & Audience Engagement Associate, which you repeated at User talk:Jimbo Wales[16]. I have since redacted that particular description, since it was from a meta-wiki profile. I am sticking to Twitter descriptions, in case there are impersonators, and if the meta-wiki person did not post that. starship.paint (talk)05:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
/* Support */ s
Just wanted to offer a kind word - you're good people Floq. Hope IRL is better for you than here. — Ched : ? — 15:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
It's good to see you, Ched. Reminds me of better times, but in a bittersweet way rather than a happy way. It used to be different, didn't it? Perhaps this is what getting old is; increasingly disappointed that you didn't realize at the time how good things were. I've got my desysop message all typed up in a different window, and ready to click "publish", just deciding on whether to respect Doc James' request to hang on a little while longer, or get it over with. It would be such a relief to click; no turning back. Probably make it easier to let go of the place completely. Perhaps I shall go get a cup of coffee and have a think. Seems like a 3-cup day.
Real life is the proverbial "rich tapestry" right now, some great things happening, some not so great things happening. But overall on the plus side. How about you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Regarding resignation, I'll repeat what I said on the thread-from-hell on my talkpage (I'm not 100% sure why my talk has become the unofficial meeting venue for the Rebel Alliance): I assume there are quite a few others in a holding pattern, not taking any administrative or maintenance actions until this is clarified but not jumping as long as there's even the slimmest possibility the WMF was in the right. There's still a slight but not zero chance that the ban was enacted for good reason and the silence and stonewalling is the result of Legal ordering staff not to disclose anything. If it does transpire that both the ban, and the unwillingness to talk, were for good reason, then every functionary who's resigned will be taken by the WMF that Wikipedia is dominated by a group of hotheads who can't be trusted to run their own affairs, and needs T&S to install a viceroy to keep the natives in order. I do recommend remaining in that holding pattern; if it does transpire that Fram was banned for uploading ostrich-pornography or mailing used condoms to editors with whom he was in dispute, every admin resignation will be taken by the WMF as evidence that the existing editor base are a clique who protect their own come-what-may, and who need Jan Eissfeldt installed as benevolent dictator to protect the public from them. ‑ Iridescent16:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Pundit says that BoT will (very likely) issue their statement within a week. You are one of the good folks over here - please hold on for some more time:-) ∯WBGconverse16:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent, I was given to understand that there were bigger issues here than guilt v. innocence of one manindividual. In at least some of those, if WMF have messed up now, no kind of info that could exist/be-revealed on the Fram case, could make them un-messed. So, having felt the outrage of getting a 20-min stub CSDed, I can see how people who've devoted 20 years voluntarily to building this project would have an extreme reaction to what's going on. So, although it is scary and sad as a new editor on the block, I can understand why the most valuable members of the community would be the most disappointed ones. Good luck Floquenbeam and thank you! (although I didn't know it, I have enjoyed the fruits of your labour and of others like you since I was in high school.)Usedtobecool✉️✨18:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
UTBC, I think you can safely assume that myself and Floquenbeam are both aware of what the issues here are, of how it feels to be a long-term editor watching the current situation, and of how this compares to Wikipedia and the WMF's other existential crises. FWIW, unless you know something we don't, it's not appropriate for you to be referring to Fram as "a man". ‑ Iridescent18:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been avoiding this for 2 weeks mostly out of respect for WJBscribe (80%), and a general hesitancy to do something irrevocable when maybe just maybe a good result will come of this in the end if I just waited (20%). But ultimately, Will didn't resysop me because he thought I should remain an admin, he resysopped me because it was an out of process abuse of power. If ArbCom had desysopped me, I am sure he would never have considered a resysop, even if he strongly disagreed with the decision. (He might have strongly agreed with the decision, I don't know.) I believe he did it because only the people who have the right to decide whether I'm an admin or not should decide my adminship status.
I am one of the people who have the right to decide whether I'm an admin or not.
So I think (or, at least, hope) that WJBscribe won't feel that his sticking his neck out was for nothing. I want to thank WJBscribe once more for doing the right thing, and paying a deep price for it. I also have an even better guess about how hard it was for him to resign from something he cares about, knowing it's irrevocable.
Anyway, I've resigned my adminship. I acknowledge I'm doing it under a cloud, so regardless of the result of the ArbCom case, I will need to go thru an RFA to get it back. I cannot imagine going thru that again, so this is for keeps. I'll really miss it; it's mostly been fun, and I hope somewhat useful, and a bigger share of how I've spent my free time than is healthy. But I find it increasingly humiliating to participate in something when the higher powers in the organization have such contempt for me and my peers (and my betters, the people who actually write articles). It is irrefutable that the WMF CEO thinks I am a free, easily replaceable work unit, a cog in the machine that allows her to travel the world. Those who don't drink the Koolaid are to be mocked. It is irrefutable that the WMF thinks of itself as the Master, and local communities as the Servants. Complain, and they will find a way to remove you under false pretexts. It is 99% irrefutable that regardless of Doc James' good will (I'm sorry for not waiting longer, Doc, I know this situation is painful for you), nothing is going to come of this; the WMF's plan is, and always has been, to simply wait it out.
Ditto, and I want to acknowledge my respect for one of the finest upholders of the ethics of this Community that it's been my privilege to know. (Is it just me, or is this starting to look like the Grey Havens? Who else will depart from Middle Earth?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Floq, we have occasionally disagreed on stuff but more often than not I have had the highest respect for you and think you are a defender of the wiki par excellence. I have tried to stay out of the Fram-related drama because I have said everything I wish to say and have made all my points, but seeing some of my favourite admins like you, Boing! and Dennis jump ship just makes me sad. :-( Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully, this crisis of confidence with the Foundation will be resolved sooner than we think. Looking forward to supporting the RfA (hopefully, also sooner than we think). El_C16:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I am just pondering some time in the future setting up an RfA along the lines of "Floq is back. They will not be answering any questions, if you want to know how they work, look at their history" and bank on anyone objecting to that getting their head sufficiently ripped off to result in a pass anyway. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't think there's a requirement that a candidate has to actively participate in their own RfA. All the nominator needs is their consent. El_C17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I know you're just thinking out loud, Ritchie. But in a way, I feel like that would be showing as much contempt for people as the WMF is showing. It's a shitty process I have no desire to repeat, but I don't think it makes sense to act as if I'm so important I don't have to go thru what everyone else has to go thru. (a) I'm not that important, (b) acting as if I am would tank an RFA anyway, and (c) if I wanted to show contempt for the community, I could have just stayed an admin and enforced the WMF's will. Sounds like I'm being too hard on you, I'm not trying to imply you have similar contempt at all, I've just already thought about this some. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, in my case it is entirely possible that I will go through RfA again (I will not ask for my adminship back without), but it would not be until the developing new power structure (which is happening, despite any denials) is complete, properly documented, seen to be working effectively and ethically, and is something of which I would wish to be a part. In short, it won't be any time soon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
There has certainly been a tendency of moving backwards in this dispute. I haven't abandoned all hope, however. El_C17:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
There was once a mayor in my home town who was embroiled in a controversy heading into an election. Upon her registration to recontest, she immediately declared that she would not be campaigning at all, and left for her cottage for the duration of the campaign. Her primary opponent, the deputy mayor, publicly campaigned against a lawn chair affixed with a place card with her name on it. She won easily. I don't mean to compare you to her, just saying an "I'm running, deal with it" RfA would be an interesting experiment. I'd vote for you. (I was too young but would not have voted for her) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Respect your decision, Floq. After the last series of tweets, it seems pretty obvious that nothing good is likely to come of this. My perspective of the situation mirrors yours, which is why I did what I did as well. We aren't unpaid workers, we're volunteers; they just don't understand the difference. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Floq, you have my highest possible respect for all of this. Unfortunately, I've gotten to feel like every day, when I log in to edit, I see yet another thing that makes me incredibly sad, and today, this is it. Whatever else, please stay around as an editor, and also keep an open mind for whatever else might be in the future. And in one fish's opinion, you are absolutely not under a cloud (except to the extent that all of us are living in stormy weather). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Very sad to see this, you had a great passion and enthusiasm for WP that was infectious – doesn't seem right that it has come to this. Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to see another good admin resign, we've had our fair share of opposing views but I've respected your decisions and come to understand them. Good luck. --qedk (t 桜 c)21:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I saw someone say somewhere that Fram was one of the best admins on the site. I don't know about that. I know you are, or were. Thank you. Do not be surprised if a few months from now I set up a poll with the simple question "Floq as admin again--yes or no", and let's see if we get to 100 yesses in ten minutes. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Pre-post my "yes", would you? You can use the timestamp from this edit. I've been thinking of starting an RfC somewhere to the effect of restoring every editor's various advanced bits who have resigned them in protest over this incident, should the WMF ever get their heads out of their collective asses. Too soon, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see this. I've been offline for a week; I came back optimistically hoping to see signs of returning normalcy, and instead, I see further stonewalling driving more people I have respect for away from this site. I wish you all the best, and I hope to goodness that we see you return to the mop corps some day. Vanamonde (Talk)19:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to see this, We've not always seen eye to eye on things especially in the past however I've still considered you to be one of the greatest admins here, If you ever ran for RFA I would 110% support it, Anyway thanks again for your service, I wish you all the best Floq, Take care, –Davey2010Talk01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James, I appreciate it, and feel sorry for the position you've been put in.
FYI, two simple things T&S could do that would take 5 minutes and would at least turn the burner off. No need for anything else in the coming week, and you can have that holiday after all. Lots of work in the coming months.
1. Keep Fram's ban in place, but give whatever evidence they feel they can to ArbCom, and say the ban is appealable to ArbCom, who would not take into account the existence or non-existence of other confidential evidence. It is literally impossible that there is some set of secret evidence that (a) they can't give to ArbCom which is simultaneously (b) so horrid that this would be impossible, but (c) that would have justified a time limited en.wiki-only ban. There is no need to identify any accusers; contrary to myth, ArbCom is perfectly capable of dealing with this kind of thing.
2. T&S can say that they will wait before making any more of these bans until after a discussion with the community results in a consensus of what to do.
Then, all time pressure is off. I have opinions, obviously, but would respect any *consensus-driven* discussion about what T&S's role in policing civility on en.wiki would be, even if I disagree.
For reasons I am too demoralized to go into, I am confident this will not happen. We are being gaslighted, and T&S is emotionally invested in not giving an inch. Your CEO is having too much fun on airplanes to know or care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your service, Floq. Kudos for your decision. Please do stop on over at Wikipediocracy and have a good vent. It does a body good. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe it is pronounced "all around good person and someone whom I have been pleased to work with" - nuf said :-) This has been true for years and not just through the current troubles. Cheers F and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk20:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Who will write the best short story Kafka style about the incident and its consequences, unresponsive bureaucracy and non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems, in short, about frustration? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
As Floquenbeam is taking/needs a break, I'll (or someone please) archive this section in 24 hours. Sincere regards. --Titodutta (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the WJBscribe case request under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved it by motion as follows:
Community advisedOffice actions are actions taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and are normally expected not to be reversed or modified by members of the community even if they have the technical ability to do so. In this case an office action was taken against Fram(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), who was blocked and whose administrator rights were removed by the role account User:WMFOffice in implementing a Partial Foundation ban ([17]). No similar action had been taken before on the English Wikipedia, and it proved highly controversial.
Although official WMF policy states that Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved, JEissfeldt (WMF) (talk·contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions ([21]). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule, wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.
I'd have supported you in a new RfA even if you hadn't indicated that's what you'd insist on, but I really admire you voluntarily choosing that. Hats off. --valereee (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
RFA for Floq would be WP:POINTY and an utter WP:WASTEOFTIME better spent on writing or curating articles. Floq's historic intervention was an inspiration at least to me and I suspect to many others. Rather than going through a regular RfA, which he declared that he will not pursue, there should be a popular-acclamation RfC/RfA by which Floq would be declared admin emeritus and be given the tools back honoris causa. Dr.K.21:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Dr.K., I don't disagree that it's a time waster. I think it's necessary for the community and WMF to see what our 'official' consensus is. I respect other opinions; I just think an RfA would be a net positive. --valereee (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Valereee. I respect your opinion as well, and I see the merits of your rationale. Dr.K.23:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That's not quite right, @Dr.K.: I said I would never pursue a simple request at BN for a return of the tools. I said I'm also unlikely to run a new RFA either, based on my current level of disillusionment and a general lack of desire to go through that process again. But if I change my mind, it will be about the RFA, not the request at BN. A "popular acclamation RFC for Admin emeritus status" sounds wonderful, but I don't think there's really such a thing.... If we're going to create new positions, I'd prefer "God Emperor".
Hmmm "God Emperor" has a nice ring to it Floq. Here is one of my favorite versions of one of those. I especially enjoy the "Plunder from old Neptune" at the end :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk19:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Floq. Thank you very much for your kind words. I am very well, thank you. I hope everything is well with you and yours also. It serves me right to try to paraphrase you and do it wrong. My apologies. But I was a bit careless for a reason. I wanted to express the idea that since we live in historic wikitimes with unprecedented events taking place, declaring someone admin emeritus honoris causa, although not based on any rules, may fit in this particular zeitgeist per IAR. However, having said that, I think admin emeritus may not be such a good idea, because it carries an aura of retirement. I don't want this for you, Floq. The wiki needs you out of retirement, as an active editor and admin. I know one thing, your actions helped me weather this storm. As far as the title "God Emperor", I thought that was reserved for Jimbo. So, sorry for not offering it to you. I didn't think it was available, and, even if it were, I don't think you'd want it. :) Dr.K.00:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
fwiw, I'm perfectly capable of valuing the views of someone who's judgement I usually respect, but with whom I've disagreed about one thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The chance of resysopping me breaking the wiki is actually 3 orders of magnitude larger, but still worth it (IMHO). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Pings
Yo, just as a quick FYI in the RfA, I did indeed get two pings, so pinging from the edit summary worked. (I had no idea.)
For what it's worth, I like "re-oust from sysop role", but it's wordy. Or we could go super poor and have de-de-desysop. I'm sure I'll come up with something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)06:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thanks, but I'm guaranteed not to break 300, and... Giggy didn't work out too terribly well. I think I'll go with whatever is behind curtain 3, Monte. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
What gets me is all the votes for or against either the WMF/T&S or Fram. (that's right, I left the "!" off of vote, I did it) — Ched : ? — 02:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
There was really no way around that. I'm not sure that's good or bad, it just is. Would have been the same if I'd waited. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I added an additional question at your RfC."WP:Admin states "Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay." You seem to have missed that requirement. If a candidate were to pass RfC without fulfilling that requirement, would he or she be an admin?"
This is not really a substantive question - it does not state that you would be blocked from becoming an admin if you had been paid for editing, it only says that you should answer the question, presumably so that editors !voting on the RfC can consider that information.
Note that I'm not accusing you of editing for pay. I'm just saying that you missed answering that question. It's quite an important question as it will help prevent our core of admins from becoming advocates or supporters for paid editors. Please correct your omission as soon as possible.
For what it’s worth. My vote wouldn’t have counted for anything, seeing as how I’m just someone’s wife (so not a real person), but pulling for you anyways. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Liz; your thoughts count as much to me of "officially recognized" comments, support percentage be damned. I couldn't vote either, but at least that makes a tiny modicum of sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Just withdraw
70+ opposes and almost 20 neutral votes for someone who had been an admin for 9 years with an established record is not a good sign. If it weren't for your many admin friends, I doubt you'd have that many supports. Do the honorable thing and withdraw, and maybe come back after a year or so because it's clear you're not wanted around anymore by a lot of people. The RfA might likely head into 'crat chat and you'd put 'crats in a difficult position once more because they'd likely favor promoting due to their familiarity with you making the chat non-neutral and would upset a lot of people. Just withdraw. Also, all the recent drama starting with WP:FRAM might actually make you understand what I meant by "the dirty politics of Wikipedia". Regards. 91.134.2.190 (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Bold words from someone who won't login, but considering what side of the fence you seem to be sitting on, I can't say I'm surprised. — Ched : ? — 10:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
BTW having "many admin friends" is a good thing. They are both knowledgeable and experienced! If they think you are a good admin. then you are a good admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Huh. SQLBot should have caught that one in its open proxy search. I've hard blocked the range for 3 years, and I'll poke SQL next week about adding new search terms to whatever he's using. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I was going through old edits the other day, God knows why, and ran into a bunch of Kumioko stuff. Such sadness. Almost forgotten, like tears in rain. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I know, glad to see it. I didn't mean "any admins around, Ched isn't one", but "an admins around now that I've ID'd the IP as a ban-evading troll". No worries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely NO reason to feel guilty Gerda. Montana is an adult, and they make their decisions, say what they believe is right, and act the way they choose because that's what THEY choose to do. (not because of anyone else) — Ched : ? — 16:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't clear about feeling guilty back then, sorry. It's over. The number was more an answer to Floq's question further up, about the range of opposes. 86 opposes for showing some temper with a heart seems a lot, compared to yours for an act of civil disobedience ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
With 1/2 of the available pool of 'crats now having come down on one side, the other side, or the recuse side - I think it's safe to say that. — Ched : ? — 13:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why - I'm a rational, fact-based person - but my gut instinct when I saw this post was "Oh no, he's going to jinx it!". Which, as you point out, might be considered a favor from some perspectives. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
condolences from me, too, special day today, look at a thoughtful person, a rare thing, a composer with an infobox, on our main page, a butterfly, flowers on a grave, and a smile, and ignore the 10 or send condolences --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawal symptoms
I know you'll have bad withdrawal symptoms, now that you won't be able to undo any office action. I allow you to undo any of my admin actions without asking me, even if it crosses into the wheel warring territory. I hope that helps ease the pressure :D Have fun adminning the third time around. Lourdes 11:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
That's ... a lot of messages to see on a Monday morning. I've hopefully either replied to you directly (for those left on Friday), or at the very least thanked those left over the weekend (for those left since then - sorry, just can't keep up); if I forgot you, I'm sorry, didn't mean anything by it. It was quite the experience, thanks for the kind words and (where applicable) the support at RFA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
'Crat chat has been closed
The 'crat chat has closed as successful. Welcome back to the corps. You'll have to find whichever closet you put your t-shirt in, since I don't think we've got any spare ones. But here's a new mop for ya (sanitation and all). Primefac (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks much, Primefac (and all the crats (and support commenters (and oppose commenters (and neutral commenters)))). Sorry for making you read all that this week; long term a much better thing to have done than just ask at BN, but I know it came at some cost in lost productivity for 420+ people, and deteriorating eyesight for 8 crats. My last RFA, I promise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
p.s. The previous T-shirt (mysteriously, like all my clothes) has shrunk in recent years, I was hoping for a new one. You don't have anything in XXXL? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I find it shameful that 'crats spent five days coming to a consensus that was not theirs to decide, but this is what happens when we let 'crats become kingmakers. I still support the abolition of the WMF and I'm glad to have admins willing to stop the WMF when they screw up. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk)16:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
They weren't coming to a consensus about whether I should be an admin or not, they were coming to a consensus on what the consensus of the community was. Perhaps I'm just so relieved that this was being decided by our own, local en.wiki process that I'm cutting them too much slack, but I think they did a really good job thinking things thru, explaining their thinking, and ultimately making that decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
You have no idea how tempted I was to post on the crat chat using that account to "recuse". I finally decided against that, based on needlessly upsetting the people who already thought I wasn't taking this seriously enough, but it was a very difficult decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Floq, check out the EXACT wording of the box at the bottom of the RfA. It says you have been given bureaucrat tools! Won't Aardvark Floquenbeam be delighted? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, supporting someone you really disagreed with is the mark of a very wise, or very foolish, man. I'll assume the former. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, you don't seem to be an admin yet. Your sig doesn't have the addition of a royal crown — I have a little script that adds that to all the real admins, for respect. And you say you don't have the pretty little icons — perhaps a symptom of the same thing. Try blocking me and see. Bishonen | talk17:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC).
I'm waiting to see if the note at the very bottom of the crat chat was a mistake or not; if not, I'll desysop you instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Bish, you don't seem to be an admin yet. Because the box at the top of this page says you aren't. And I know that must be true, because I saw it on the Internet! -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Great, you fixed it! And I loved the quote from Ozymandias - one of my favorite poems! -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I ever noticed that, alphabetically, you're tucked right between two T&S employees. Small world, eh? (or: "there goes the neighborhood!") Anyway, congrats. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Heh. They could go for 3 in a row and hire me. I could be "T&S En.wiki Community Liaison" or "T&S Ombudsman" or "T&S Vice Chairman in Charge of 'Whoa Hang On Let's Think About This'" or something. I may have stumbled onto one of the few things that would outrage everyone on both sides of the debate. Which would almost be a unifying thing.... -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations Floq, We've not always seen eye to eye but I've still always considered you to be one of the greatest admins on this site and that'll never change, Genuinely very happy for you! :), Happy blocking! :). –Davey2010Talk18:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Having gone through my own crat chat, I'm not sure what is more anxiety-inducing, the RfA week or the waiting for the crats to assess consensus. But the good news is that it does come to an end. Congratulations on returning to the mop crew! Get swabbing! ;-) LizRead!Talk!19:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Congrats Floq. I trust you'll be thanking your all 300+ supporters individually, just like Cullen did - only fair now you've broken his record.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
On another special day, the next edition of the above, now with a connection to history. I hope that the butterfly of lightness will often land on the thorny job, "no foul. play on.", possibly the best edit summary of all times. (ARCA open again where you - all - could say so, supporting a motion to relax some restrictions a tiny bit.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Bit late, but congratulations! I hardly need to tell you that your RfA is the most supported in English Wikipedia history! Linguist111my talk page15:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I reaffirm my support. Is this finally over? Well, hopefully yes. But as with any epic, there may be a sequel. And that was an epic RfA by any measure. So I reaffirm my support just in case. Dr.K.01:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Many congrats F. Having been out of town for a few days I am absolutely delighted to see this outcome on my return. Best wishes to you. MarnetteD|Talk01:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Administrator changes
None
Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Interface administrator changes
Oversight changes
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
Miscellaneous
Obituaries
.jpg)
_(3034045389).jpg)
.jpg)
Bishonen | talk 16:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC).
could be added to {{smiley}} ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
. 157.127.124.152 (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack yourself, as you did on WP:ERRORS. Please comment on the contributions and not yourself. If you make any further self-attacks you may have to report yourself to yourself, which may result in a self-block. Thank you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jax 0677. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User_talk:MelanieN#March_2019 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
– SJ + 19:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Review of closure that appears to invent new policy out of nowhere". Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
CheckUser changes
MastCell Talk 17:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg)
