Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 10:45, 29 April 2016 (→MF's block: WP:REDACT own comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notes Normal humans: I'm not online very often these days, and when I am, I don't have much stomach for anything complicated, stressful, depressing, or time consuming. You're still welcome to post here, but it's unlikely I'll be able or willing to help in a timely manner. Admins: I'm not online very often these days, so 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 - 9 January 2025 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Another example

Another fine example of arguing & convincing you delivered. How bright your understanding of the thread it shows! One question: why only one month? Have you grown a sense? Next time, just start with a year no less. To keep your standing, as it were. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Make it two years, in your mental universe. The smallest universe known. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow... sorry I got you blocked Floquenbeam. HighInBC 01:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Bagumba: For such a wonderful and upstanding person, my block log is getting pretty long. Certainly longer now than Bish's, which I hope is a source of envy and minor annoyance to her. Anyway, Bagumba, if I'd seen DP acting out like that with any other editor, I'd have done the same thing you did, but for future reference, if his petulance is aimed at me, and only at me, I don't really care. The problem is it is seldom aimed only at me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Bagumba blocked you? That's nice. Admittedly I have no recent blocks, but I did get reported for vandalism the other day, and by the excellent Oshwah. "Actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Sock puppet of Profile101". Better than your Personal attacks or harassment. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC).

I see you remain unblocked even after your sockpuppetry has been exposed. Protected as always by your admin friends. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Membership has it's privileges: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bagumba.—Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And its has it's spelling. EEng 04:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Be careful what you say, or them crazy admin friends will come.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my bad. I still don't know how I managed to do that instead of reporting the IP. ~Oshwah~ 21:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Does that also go for other editors? 'Cause I'd really like to pop by and call you a dick once in a while. Izkala (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems like an odd way to keep me from talking to/about you (which as I recall was your strong desire). But sure, why not, if it brings you some kind of joy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I just feel kind of terrible after saying it. Izkala (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No harm done from my end. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Protection templates

Re your comment, there is a bot which removes the template from unprotected pages, but it sometimes takes a while to get around to it. There isn't a bot to add it to pages which are protected, this needs to be done manually. DuncanHill (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There used to be, though. I wonder what happened to it? It used to act within 5 minutes or so of page protection. Hard to change habits ingrained by 5 years of doing it one way, but I'll try. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Baseball Bugs did something clever that will at least address the problem at the ref desks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Protecting with Twinkle allows you to add the the template of your choice and it's all in one click. —SpacemanSpiff 14:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this the second or third time this week you've told me something useful that I'm publicly embarrassed not to have known before? Thank you, and stop it! --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

MA (won't ping him as he seems to have an outstanding ping below) has done a wonderful job with WP:ADMINTOOLS (I only read it as I've been away for a few months.) I haven't gotten to using many of them and I'll stop talking now. —SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Kudos

Thanks for your comments. I didn't invent that code. It was suggested by another user, MusikAnimal, who is also the author of the bot that removes the plain "pp" template when protection expires. He assured me this approach should work, and take away the need to manually add it when a page is protected. Should make Duncan Hill happy too. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It does work, I tested in in my sandbox. Thanks to MA then, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Thanks for your advice. I'm just feeling bothered by this user who insisted that I violate the 3RR rules, for which I didn't! I have proof that my 'fourth edit' (which is made by another user) is not within 24 hours and I'm not even reverting into my own edit. It was someone else's edits. Thank you again for listening to me. Sorry for bothering you with this. (SquidHomme) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@SquidHomme:, this is easily solved. Discuss the issue on the article talk page, and all the edit warring complaints will melt away. Betty Logan's main complaint appears to be that you are not discussing; she's opened a section on the talk page, chime in there. Easy peasy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, I see you already did that. Great. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting used to this. This is the first time I engage in a dispute. Thank you again for your advice sir, have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidHomme (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

request

If you're online, would you mind taking a look at this 3RR report about me? The reporter seems to have just gone off the deep end and I'm really exhausted at having to have just put hours into defending my edits only to find out it was all a big joke. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please also note here. This is completely out-of-hand. 06:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron:, sorry, I'm not around much on weekends. It looks like JBW has dealt with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

MF's block

Hi Floquenbeam. First of all, I completely understand your reasoning for the blocks of Calvin and MaranoFan and based on the former's behaviour, I agree with it 100%. I don't know if you've noticed, but I recently adopted MaranoFan so that I'll be ensuring that this fiasco and pointless feud with Calvin doesn't happen again. To be fair, she did get drawn into that ANI thread (which everyone admitted was pointless) by Calvin, so I'm not advocating anybody's behaviour. I've been talking to MF a lot lately and I've made her aware that I'll be guiding her and keeping an eye on her to make sure that nothing like this happens again. We both agreed that she wants an interaction ban with Calvin and she has promised that she won't get drawn into to any more arguments. To enforce this, I will monitor her closely and I can vouch for her. I'm going to cut to the chase; would you be open to unblocking her now or would she have to make another unblock request so that a neutral party can review it? I know how you might feel about this, but she's been doing good work lately. She has potential, and I'll make sure nothing like that happens to her again. JAGUAR  19:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Let me think about it a little bit. One the one hand, she's made several unblock requests that, to me, didn't acknowledge any responsibility for the overarching problem. Calvin's unblock requests have been in a similar vein. If two people just don't seem to get that they're both at fault, it seems a little off-putting to unblock one and not the other. It would be different if one of them owned their responsibility and the other didn't, but that doesn't seem to be happening here. On the other hand, I have a certain level of hope/confidence that your mentoring will help the situation on her end. I'll get back to you in a while after I've chewed on it some. Of course, you can always put up a new unblock request and see how another admin sees it, no matter what I end up saying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I will weigh in here because I declined a set of unblock requests from each user. My opinion at the time was that the duration was justified because of the continuation of the blame game.

Had either of the users managed to not continue to blame the other and take responsibility I probably would have approached Floquenbeam about a reduction in duration. However what I saw was one editor accuse the other of vandalism(over a content dispute) and the other suggesting it was not their actions that were disruptive.

The idea of one being unblocked but not the other when neither seem to get it sticks in my craw as well. I won't interfere with any future unblock requests but my suggestion is that either the mentoring take place after the block to avoid them repeating such a situation, or that it helps them address the actual reasons for the block.

As it stands I still think the blocks are preventative in nature. That is my 2 cents, take what value you will from it. HighInBC 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have been corresponding with Calvin. He states that he wants nothing to do with MF but I warned him that if he couldn't stay away from the editor, or commenting about her and her editing behavior, the next block would be significantly longer. This is my gut feeling but I think it takes a while to disengage when one is in a feud with another editor and I don't think they are there yet. A week is just not enough time.

I would consider an unblock after two weeks of month-long block but I fear that despite promises made in unblock requests, an unblock so soon would result in an subsequent block in the near future. One can proclaim "I won't be provoked by Editor X" but what really has to happen is for them to not even acknowledge each other or stalk each other contributions and that is a major behavior change that will take some time. Liz 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban would be best for these two editors. It appears that this time Calvin lured MF into the last argument, and both seem to be willing to leave each other alone. MF has also agreed to an interaction ban (community enforced or informal, I'm not sure). I understand how unblocking one and not the other would seem unusual. How does unblocking both and imposing an interaction ban sound? If one editor violates the interaction ban, then they can be blocked or warned, and I can vouch that MF will never do that. Once she gets unblocked, I'll keep a close eye on her contributions and will guide her on making content work, which she enjoys doing. JAGUAR  22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I can see you are an enthusiastic mentor but I don't see how you can promise editors who have been unable to stop complaining about each other for months can now cease and desist after one week? I think you do them a disservice if you are advocating an immediate unblock because I don't think they have reached the point where they can stay away from each other or refrain from discussing each other. I think an IBan now will be hard to abide by without a little more time off from editing.

I still advocate reconsidering unblock requests, at a minimum of two weeks into this block. But I also don't think a month-long block is unwarranted in this situation. These are two editors who on the first day into a block started asking for an unblock. Promises are easy to make and difficult to abide by when the feud has gone on as long as this one has. What I'm trying to avoid for both of these editors is a future indefinite block which I think could happen with an unblock that happens too soon. Liz 00:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)