User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Difference between revisions

Note: I like to keep discussion threads together, so if you leave a message here I will usually respond here. If I have begun a discussion on your page, I'll see it if you respond there. A {{ping}} would be appreciated if you reply at a later date. {{Talkback}} notes here will generally not be needed. Note to new and non-logged-in editors: Due to a long-term issue with vandalism, this talkpage has unfortunately had to be semi-protected. If you need to contact me and can't post here, please just post your message on your own talkpage or the talkpage of the relevant article and add the code "{{ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}" to it, then I'll be sure to see it.

Archives

your answer is provided in the talk page!

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Have a look at his contribs. After receiving notification of his topic ban, and archiving it yesterday at 21:24, Timbouctou's been active on

• Ibrica Jusić, a Croatian singer
• Mate Matišić, a Croatian screenwriter
• No One's Son, a Croatian movie
• Bad Blue Boys, a gang of Croatian football hooligans
• Talk:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where he's discussing Yugoslavia's republic system (which directly relates to Croatia's legal status, and its inception as a republic during WWII as defined in its constitution).

-- Director (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. You, however, have also broken your interaction ban by reporting him here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, we're grown people... I'm reporting him to the admin that just banned him a day ago. I'll cut-and-paste the report to ANI if you're serious. -- Director (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's exactly not what you should be doing. You are interaction-banned (at your own request, remember?) The ANI exemption to that interaction ban would apply only if you needed to report the other guy for breaches of that same interaction ban against you. Any other restrictions he's under are none of your business at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Right. Won't happen again. Wasn't clear on that point, somehow figured all the bans are lumped together in that regard. -- Director (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, perhaps you should make an exception there ("allowed to post a report on topic bans")... Rather an elegant way to have the ban police itself, in either direction. Back at the time of the original IBAN, the IBAN was all there was. -- Director (talk)

Could I ask a procedural question, as you're an Admin I've come into contact with often, and I don't you or I have ever been in a conflict either on the "same side" or "opposite sides" so probably neutral. What to do in case a reported incident at WP:ANI goes unattended and the situation just escalates? Of course it's not just curiosity, I filed a report yesterday I thought was unusually clear about a user who has claimed ownership of several articles (not just my impression, pointed out by several users). [1] Since then, very little admin response and in the meantime the situation just escalates with reported user funnily enough reverting three different users just today [2] and still claim they represent the consensus despite being opposed by all other users both in editing and on the talk page. The easiest thing, personally, is to walk away. At the same, this rewards that type of behavior. Another user point out on the talk page that it's apparent this user tries to wear down everybody else to "win". I understand Admins have tons of things to do and cannot attend to all situations, and that is only natural. But what recommendation would you give in a situation like this one?Jeppiz (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earlier. I can feel your frustration; in fact, I myself had an ANI complaint the other day that lingered on without action for weeks too. The thing is, given the scarcity of high-quality admin attention, anything at ANI that involves more than a brief glance at immediately spottable behavioral patterns of the 3RR/personal-attacks/legal-threats type, especially anything that would require people to actually look into the merits of edits and content-related arguments, to see which side is or isn't acting responsibly with respect to sourcing or neutrality in a dispute, is likely to be ignored, because ANI regulars are simply too lazy or busy to do that. And I plead guilty in that I, too, saw your complaint thread there and opted to not take a stand on it. Luckily, in this case, it seems that the issue has now been more or less sorted out, is that correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed: does "Croatian officeholders" extend to people with some Croatian ancestry, who were not officeholders in/of Croatia? As in say, Josip Broz Tito (Slovene/Croat president of Yugoslavia) or Ivan Gašparovič (Slovak/Croat president of Slovakia), etc.. -- Director (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell out things in too much detail. Let's put it like this: as long as you don't start disputes that are similar in nature to the one about the "presidents of Croatia", I won't have a problem with you editing the Tito bio or stuff like that. Just please don't let me find you getting yourself again drawn into semantic debates over what exactly Tito was head of and whether that makes him a predecessor in office of some other guy today; that sort of thing. You're an intelligent guy; I do trust you can draw some reasonable line for yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sure thing. Wanted to be sure, didn't want to repeat the above mistake. -- Director (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FPaS, I saw you blocked Retartist and they definitely deserved a block. I was considering anywhere from a week to indef, so a month is fine with me. But one thing, the block appears to be a normal admin block, and not an AE block, which is a different category and is cataloged and handled a bit differently. Would you consider making your block an AE block? Thanks... Zad68 14:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, I forgot I should probably log it somewhere. Let me just go and see where that log has moved to this month; I keep losing sight of it these days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I think after putting the entry in the log you need to: modify the AE close to reflect that there was a formal AE action taken in the form of an AE block (feel free to modify my close), put a formal AE sanction notice on their User Talk (I think {{Uw-aeblock}} is the right one), and re-block with a note that it's an AE block in the block message. Zad68 15:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, are you sure I don't also have to send in verified copies in triplicate to the Foundation and to Jimbo? :-) Seriously though, the talkpage notification is moot, since the guy has already acknowledged he's seen it and understood the reason, and was told about the appeal process already when the topic ban was imposed. The block log entry is fine as it is, and as for the AE closure note, if you think it should be in there, wouldn't it have been up to you to include it when you made the close in the first place? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also make sure you read WP:NOTBUREAU to remind yourself that it's not a bureaucracy. It just isn't! Policy says so, so that's settled. I didn't note in my close that the block was an action that happened as a consequence of the AE request because the block wasn't marked as such, but I'll modify the close, no problem. My only real hang-up is marking the block itself as an AE block. When I'm reading through stuff at AE I do look at the block logs of those involved to see whether they've received any AE blocks before, because some ArbCom case resolutions give specific instructions about escalating block lengths, so I have to know if they've ever been blocked under that ArbCom ruling before. Also, some other admin might see the block and not know it's an AE block that cannot be unblocked without going through Arb rigamarole. If you'd rather not bother, would you might if I redid your block (same parameters) and just marked that it's an AE block? Zad68 16:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: Fut perf is correct, if you reblock as AE block, systematically it would count as 2 blocks and it can be disparaging for the editor. Keep it as it is, it says enough. Have his usertalk page watchlisted for a month so that you would know if someone is going to undo the block or not. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, nah, because some non-human algorithm might report a higher number than it should isn't a compelling reason to avoid giving admins correct, descriptive information in a block log. Anybody who's making decisions based on a number instead of actually reviewing the log entries shouldn't be doing whatever they're doing, block logs have LOTS of errors in them (look at mine!). Zad68 20:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FPaS, I have followed the thread at Talk:Kosovo#Redundant_note and see that you are an admin. I see from the posts that the note is usable and there are times that it is redundant. Earlier I made this very edit[3] but you'll see from the previous edit that the note was already in place, it simply lacked the cross-reference. In your opinion, would you say this is correctly applied or is this an example where it is not required? Personally I confess to having thought it belongs everywhere there is reference to modern-day Kosovo (except the article of course per your removal). If I am mistaken, can you give me an analysis as to where I should not insert the note for future reference? Thanks. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]