Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 13 November 2019

Notes Normal humans: I'm an admin again! Not around too much, so best to ask another admin for help, but I'll do what I can, when I can. Admins: If you think an admin action I've taken in the past is wrong or no longer useful, go ahead and undo or change it without feeling like you have to talk to me first. WP:SOLVED WP:LIGHTBULB WP:VOGONS WP:BEDFELLOWS

Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield! Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain. --Friedrich Schiller

Archives Year Zero: 13 Aug 2008 - 12 Aug 2009 Year One:13 Aug 2009 - 12 Aug 2010 Year Two:13 Aug 2010 - 12 Aug 2011 Year Three:13 Aug 2011 - 12 Aug 2012 Year Four:13 Aug 2012 - 12 Aug 2013 Year Five:13 Aug 2013 - 12 Aug 2014 Year Six:13 Aug 2014 - 12 Aug 2015 Year Seven:13 Aug 2015 - 12 Aug 2016 Year Eight:13 Aug 2016 - 12 Aug 2017 Year Nine:13 Aug 2017 - 12 Aug 2018 Year Ten:13 Aug 2018 - 12 Aug 2019 Year Eleven:13 Aug 2019 -9 January 2025 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Somebody's got to...

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You should have just told them to floq off. –xeno 00:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I was disappointed this wasn’t ArbFloq Round 2. –xeno 00:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Dude. Don't give them ideas... --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Aardvarkrbitrator Floquenbeam Mark II. –xeno 02:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. I thought you meant you thought it would be funny if they'd taken me to ArbCom. But you mean you thought the thread title implied I was going to run for ArbCom? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. (takes breath) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You wound me sir! –xeno 07:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You forgot a ha. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If you don't run, nor SBHB, who will say "no foul, play on"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You know if you are just going to do the work of an arbitrator, you might as well take the hat. It's one of the handsomest hats, too. –xeno 18:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're talking about what I assume you're talking about, that's the kind of thing an Arb (mostly) just can't do. An Arb almost never acts unilaterally, they have to go thru the glacial process of herding all the other cats getting the consent of the other Arbs first. The quickest the Committee could turn around a motion to say something like that - if it's unanimous - is probably like 2 days.

I was a horrible Arb during my 6 months on the job, mostly due to not having the time to do a lot of the work, while simultaneously feeling enormous guilt because I felt an obligation to try to pull my own weight. Also because I think I'm probably a big picture person rather than a detail-oriented person, so I *hated* the round-and-round detail tweaking on the mailing list. Also the unrelenting ugliness of people (often on both sides of a dispute) depressed me more than I expected it would. Also everyone else on the Committee was so much more competent than I was. I. Will. Never. Ever. Run. Again.

But not only that, I feel I'm actually much more useful to the community as an admin than as an Arb. In this case, I could review the situation, make what I think was a fair decision, compose a couple of sentences, and post it in 15 minutes, instead of 2 days. I feel much more productive and much more useful as a rouge admin than I ever did as an Arb. It's good to be self-aware enough to know when you aren't cut out for something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry

Saw your note on Arbcom. Acknowledging and complying. I also wanted to say how refreshing I found your tone in your earlier comment. You represent what Misplaced Pages used to be back in the days of Phaedriel and others. Hope you're having a lovely day! Jokestress (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks. Nice of you to say. You must have caught me on a good day; I sort of have a reputation in some circles as a self-righteous cowboy admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

EC userpage

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

Hi Floq. You removed the sock tags from EC's userpage and indefinitely full protected it. He is still socking, and using socks to influence RfAs. This editor should not receive special treatment. Please unprotect the page and/or place the normal sock master tags. Thank you. – Levivich 16:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve said before, and will say again, I won't fight with an Arb, an Arb clerk responding to an Arb's request, or a CU readding the tag. I'd disagree, but defer to their opinion. I wouldn't even fight with a random admin who overrode the protection, probably, just because that isn't a hill I'm willing to wheel war on. But I note that no Arb or clerk or CU has felt the need to override the protection so far. What I think is poisonous, and continues to be poisonous regardless of Eric's behavior, is Eric’s enemies crawling out from the woodwork in order to try to shame him by making sure the tag is there. In particular, one enemy rekindling the fight after it had died down for a month.

In my experience, there is usually no actual benefit to those tags, for anyone, except the gleeful feeling of victory they give to the editors' enemies. People claiming this is special treatment are apparently unaware that these tags are not uniformly applied, and there's a lot of variance in how it's handled. People claiming they want it on there in order to inform innocent editors dropping by the page that the user is blocked are lying. They want it as a token of victory. Yuck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Months later he is still socking and using the socks to try and tank multiple RfAs. That just washed over you like it’s nothing? Still worthy of your protection? – Levivich 17:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The presence or absence of the tag would not have changed that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

No, but it should change your opinion as to whether or not he deserves your protection. – Levivich 17:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a human being who can't edit their own talk page. By definition that deserves protection. --valereee (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, we don't full-protect the pages of editors who have TPA revoked as a matter of ordinary course. You're also missing the big, giant, point: it's not the protection, it's removing the tag, and then full-protecting it. This is hiding from public view the fact that this account is a sock master. AND the sockmaster is using socks to tank the RfAs of editors with whom he had disputes years ago. Go ahead, and tell me this is OK. – Levivich 18:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, do you not have anything else you could be doing? I recommend WP:FAC or WP:GAC, or maybe even turn a red link blue. Ya know, constructive things that benefit us all. Cassianto 18:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• you have to understand that you're dealing with an editor who thinks posting a proud "these are disagreements I've been in" on their user page is a reason to support a RfA. I don't suspect that logic, reasoning, and compassion are inside their wheelhouse. — Ched (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  Ched, you're saying I lack compassion for the editor who is socking to oppose the RfAs of editors with whom he had disputes years ago? You're goddamn right I do. – Levivich 18:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, that editor tried to tank my own RfA, and I'm not sure I'd ever had an interaction with him. :) I just feel like we don't need to make sure bad behavior is punished in every possible way. --valereee (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

- just a FYI - mine as well. — Ched (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Another reason that passers-by should not be tagging user pages is that such mindless activity generates bitterness by grave dancing—it's pointless, unpleasant and degrades the community. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the others here, but I had a tag on my page for the whole year (2013 to 2014) that I was banned. I'm not an enemy of EC, but his page should be tagged as long as EC's banned. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

He isn't banned, he's blocked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's a distinction with a difference. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• As a checkuser, I would appreciate if you would restore the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag. That tag is used for tracking (e.g. Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Eric Corbett) and it is also important to note (e.g. for admins considering unblocking him) that there is non-public evidence demonstrating he has evaded his block. He's also one checkuser finding away from being banned by the community in addition to Arbcom's actions. I have no opinion about the rest. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no info in the tag that isn't in the block log, and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Eric Corbett exists whether the tag is there or not. If, as a Checkuser, you honestly think there is some benefit to adding the tag beyond its function as a scarlet letter, then please do so; I'll defer to your authority in this area, and you'll get no further argument from me. Just FYI, if you decide to add it, you'll get fewer people screaming at you if you add it to the user page, rather than replace the user page contents with the tag. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    This is the thing for me, Floq: for whom else have you done this? For what other editor have you removed a sockpuppet tag and then full-protected their userpage? Would you do this for me, if I socked? Or is this the only one? I don't really care if the sockpuppet tag is there or not–that's really a technical matter above my paygrade–it's you using your tools to give someone special treatment that I object to. Despite your good intentions, surely you can see that this just shouts favoritism. It plays right into the "unblockables" narrative. I am hoping that even if you thought it was the right thing to do at the time you did it, you will come to realize it's not the right thing to do, and reverse yourself. (And not put it upon another editor to reverse you, which will put a target on their other editor's back.) – Levivich 18:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

    • (edit conflict) For one thing the block log is not properly notated (EC's master account was not re-blocked upon discovery of their confirmed socks, since they were already blocked and we're not supposed to use blocks just to make notations in the log), and the template also provides links to the relevant categories and evidence discussions. It also categorizes the page in Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppeteers, which is a separate process from the sockpuppet categories. I agree that generally application of these tags should be left to SPI clerks and checkusers, and also that the contents of the page needn't be replaced by the tag, but I disagree that the application is inconsistent in particular for {{sockpuppeteer}} - every confirmed sockmaster should have that tag, and if they don't then it should be added. I suppose you can make a fair argument that the tag is a badge of shame, but, well, that's our tag for editors who use multiple accounts abusively. I think what you really mean in this particular situation is that the various block tags are being used as a parting shot, and the editors who are engaging in that might well find themselves blocked too. Your protection of the page was probably a fairer response to that.

  (after ec) Levivich, we appreciate your passion but, respectfully, I think you should take a step back from this. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Like I said, Ivan, I am perfectly willing to defer to you. If you re-add, there will be no hard feelings on my end; while the effect will still be a badge of shame, I know that is not your intention. Thank you for replying to Levivich, it means I don't have to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  I appreciate you saying so, and since I get that this is not a run-of-the-mill situation and just to check that I don't have my head too far up my own ass (and also WP:NDR) I've sent off a note to the functionaries mailing list to ask for more input on the tag. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sounds like a plan. I do think, no matter what the decision ends up being, that the protection should remain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I don't care whether the page is tagged or not, and I've not seen any of the other arbs express a strong opinion on it either. It's the CheckUser team that are going to have to enforce EC's block from hereon out so I'll defer to whatever they find most useful. But I'm puzzled by your comment I won't fight with an Arb, an Arb clerk responding to an Arb's request, or a CU readding the tag. I (an arb and CU) originally added the tags as a routine part of the ArbCom/CU block. So your reverting to and protecting the version before that is already overriding an arbitration/CU action. Like I say, if that's what you want to do it's fine by me, but let's call a spade a spade. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Readd. The tag had been off the page for about a month, and the dispute had settled down, and no arbs or CUs seemed to be bothered by that nor had they readded it, when it was readded by someone who is not an arb and not a CU, and who had already been reverted once before. You're welcome to look at it from this "overriding an Arb" perspective, of course; but it isn't the perspective I would use. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, so you're happy to protect the revert of an arbitration action, as long as an arb only tries to do it once? Seems a little arbitrary. – Joe (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. You are not going to look at this from any other perspective besides your own, so I think further snark by you here will be unproductive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• You make it sound like Floq was acting unilaterally when he was in fact reverting to the consensus per the discussion that followed your action.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Thanks, I wanted to link to that discussion but couldn't find it. But I think the point remains that Floq is enforcing a consensus (actually only two editors explicitly in support, as far as I can see) to overturn an arbitration action. So the suggestion that he is only acting insofar as he isn't challenged by an arb or CU is inconsistent. – Joe (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• An easy compromise here would be to just manually add Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Eric Corbett to EC's user page. The CUs get their tracking, and it's much less badge-of-shame-like than the full template. ~Awilley (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'm no longer a functionary, so I'm not part of that discussion, but @Ivanvector: might want to suggest that to them. Whatever they think best. Haven't thought it completely through, but that might not be a bad idea for all people blocked for sockpuppetry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding

Hey Floq,

Thanks for the close on my Proposal. I did not know you had to propose that on arbcom. I’m not an admin and not entirely familiar with ArbCom, so Ill steer clear of starting a case and maybe someone else will bring it up.

My proposal was done in good faith and I stand by my reasonings I proposed. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

AmericanAir88 19:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl decided she needed the last word, so I've given up and removed the archive box. Just FYI, a desysop will still not happen as a result of an ANI thread, so my advice is to not waste more time on that discussion, but I no longer care if people voluntarily choose to waste their time there. In fact, I think I may have been unwise in closing it; it might be useful as a kind of honey pot to keep the pro-portal and anti-portal fanatics out of the hair of normal humans for a few weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume if I don't participate in the survey, I'll get another mass message asking me to take a survey on why not? To nip this in the bud, I responded at the survey with the following comment: I have lost faith that my opinion would count for anything if it did not align with the WMF's prefered position. In that case, my participation would be legitimizing a farce, and a waste of my time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

IBAN clarification

It was a busy night on the ARS list. There was a minor edit war, with User ජපස reverting my addition to the rescue list twice: first, second. Next User ජපස tried to delete the whole project. Next the talk page. I decided to exit at this point.

Then Hijiri88 then became involved posting on my addition to the list which the editors were fussing over, here and here Due to my IBAN with Hijiri88, I understand we are not allowed to "feud" with one another, but is Hijiri88's involvement with my listing okay? Thanks in advance, and apologies for the long way of asking a question here. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)