Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 62 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 123 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 120 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 120 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 92 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 72 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 72 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 57 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 57 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 49 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 47 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide

(Initiated 45 days ago on 19 July 2024) Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 45 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

(Initiated 37 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

(Initiated 28 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

(Initiated 21 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 17 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	8	0	8
TfD	0	1	15	0	16
MfD	0	0	4	0	4
FfD	0	0	4	0	4
RfD	0	0	90	0	90
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17#Category:Discotek Media

(Initiated 32 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

(Initiated 23 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

(Initiated 14 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Template:Latvia-edu-stub

(Initiated 13 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Category:Non-fiction books about the African-American civil rights movement

(Initiated 13 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#Merge proposal

(Initiated 317 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 120 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Cartoon_image_near_lead

(Initiated 118 days ago on 7 May 2024) 34 comments, 17 people in discussion. Discussion has mostly died down. Not the most monumental of issues, but closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 98 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 96 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 86 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 64 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 57 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion#Requested move 10 August 2024

(Initiated 23 days ago on 10 August 2024) It's clear there's no consensus, both to not move the page to the initially desired page title or to certain alternatively proposed page titles, but the discussion has run stale and the page needs moving now that it is no longer August. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Altenmann. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 23 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

76.189.109.155 and drama

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

76 has been editing using this IP address since May 1, 2013. He has made many, many edits. Although I haven't looked at all of them, I would say his article edits are probably generally constructive. Outside of article edits, his behavior ranges from charming to obnoxious. Obviously, the reason I'm here is to find a way to eliminate - or at least drastically reduce - the obnoxious. Frankly, I think the only way to do it is through blocks, although I'm open to a creative topic ban that achieves the objective without blocks.

As is clear from his edits, 76 has edited here before May 1. Somewhere he acknowledged that - can't remember where, but I don't think he's hiding it anyway. I believe he claims he's only edited as an IP and has never had a registered account. I have no way of verifying that.

I believe I first became aware of his existence because of an incident in May that this ANI topic and this ANI topic partly reflect and that 76 turned into a major drama. Indeed, one of the reasons I am starting this topic is because of a new but related drama regarding 76's own talk page.

The crux of the problem are these dramas. User:Dennis Brown expressed it reasonably well with this comment: "Mr IP, I'm a bit worried as to why you are here. Everywhere I look and see you, it is usually nothing but wikilawyering. I'm not saying you are wrong on every single point, but your main contribution to Wikipedia seems to be drama." 76 does not take kindly to criticism and responded in part: "I suggest you keep your passive-aggressive (and inaccurate) insults to yourself."

The response to Dennis is a significant part of the problem. 76 likes discussing things with admins directly and on admin noticeboards. He kind of has two lists, those admins he likes (they agree with him or are at least nice to him) and those he doesn't. Admins swap back and forth on the lists depending on the most recent interaction between 76 and the admin. Currently, at least User:Bwilkins, User:Orangemike and Dennis are on the bad list. I've gone back and forth a number of times. I'm not sure where I am right now but if I'm not already on the bad list, I will be after I post this.

As for Bwilkins and Mike, 76 is currently pounding them to death on their talk pages. He's kind of like an aggressive, self-righteous lawyer cross-examining a witness to get them to admit something. Unfortunately, there's no Wikipedia judge to limit the examination.

The latest drama is the template {{dynamicip}}. User:Toddst1 added (re-added?) the template to 76's talk page. The IP removed it, and then there was a bit of a battle including my involvement. You can see discussions about it on my talk page and User:Jayron32's talk page. 76 questioned Todd about it, but Todd declined to discuss it and removed 76's comments. The last "compromise" suggestion by 76 was he would "permit" the template to remain on his talk page but not at the top of the page where these templates go because, says 76, policy doesn't require that it be on the top. I objected to that, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Last I looked, it was buried somewhere in the middle of the page, although he's been edit warring with various editors to keep it where he wants it.

These dramas are a continuing drain on resources. At some point they outweigh the positive contributions 76 makes, but even if 76 is not a net liability to the project, he needs to be reined in. Although I've included some links, I'm not going to hunt down all the dramas and all the examples of 76's shifting opinions about admins and editors. Whether I am or not, I have decided I am involved. Therefore, I can't take any administrative action against him, even for the latest edit warring on his talk page and his self-serving interpretation of policy.

I will notify 76 and some of the involved admins after I post this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these dramas from this problematic IP are a continued drain on our resources. I see more antipathy towards admins than anything else from this editor. I followed the invective on user talk: Bwilkins from this editor and recognized this editor from a similar fiasco in May. Since I haven't used any administrative privileges, I felt free to walk away from the conversation given the long history of drama-mongering from this IP. I think this editor should have been blocked long ago for persistent WP:Battle and WP:Wikilawyering during this editor's short tenure here at his/her current sticky dynamic IP address. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If 76.189.109.155 experiences such aversion to {{dynamicip}}, then I can propose to make another design of the dynamic IP notice, specially for him – if he likes it. But can I ask the community to ban 76.189.109.155 from user_talk:s of all users who experience an aversion to 76.189.109.155, of all who states that does not like him? I think it would be a reasonable compromise. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Compromise" necessarily indicates that all parties are getting something but not everything they want. This is not a compromise. Making special templates and requiring a great number of admin to avoid an IP editor that isn't interested in building articles is not a compromise, it is a burdensome capitulation to an editor that is offering nothing of value to the encyclopedia. I'm not sure I've run across them before except to post that one notice regarding their behavior, an administrative task. Should I be required to avoid problematic IPs? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that it's important for the decisions we have to make here, but you have interacted with 76 before now. For example, here (in a pleasant way) and here in a not-so-pleasant way with 76 taking potshots at User:Kudpung.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not propose you to avoid 76.189.109.155. And I do not propose to ban 76.189.109.155 from interaction with certain editors in all venues. I said only that I said: to ban 76.189.109.155 from starting his pointless lawyering at my user_talk, Toddst1’s one, Ymblanter’s one, and possibly of other users. It is the most disruptive his thing, according to my experience. I do not think that immediate ejecting of the editor without an intermediate stage of restrictions is a good policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll say nothing (the history on my talkpage - yes, I removed a couple of posts) and the bizarre discussion on Orangemike's talkpage pretty much say it all. However, I'll correct one thing: I actually the IP likes OrangeMike ... after all, the IP claims I threw OM under the bus yesterday, and won't drop the sharp, pointy thing even when proven otherwise. Do with him what you will, but at least do something ... this is an effing ridiculous waste of resources and goodwill (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"at least do something... this is an effing ridiculous waste of resources and goodwill" +1 Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In view of the continued edit warring. WP:3RR has certainly been exceeded. I B Wright (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• My quoted statement already presents my perspective. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but it has been disruptive. Users whose primary purpose is to be a social gadfly are not really here to build an encyclopedia, they are here for....something else, which I have no idea. I think poking the admin from time to time is probably a very beneficial thing, we are and should be fully accountable, but being a self-righteous and self-appointed full-time wikilawyer (particularly when your understanding of policy is dubious, at best) goes way beyond the role of "loyal opposition" and enters the realm of trolling. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It has to be said that due to recent problems with IP editors, I have modified my view as to whether such editors should be permitted to edit in Wikipedia. But the people who have the power to decide these things have decided that they are acceptable and I have to respect that. However, it has to be said that this is the first time that I have come across an IP editor who is going out of his way to elicit an editing block. Maybe, it's some sort of rite of passage. I B Wright (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize to all the admins I offended, especially the ones I really like. Especially Bbb23, who's a great guy. Let me make this simple. I'm upset because of the very disrepectul way OrangeMike was treated with regard to this ANI discussion. Please read my comments there. Mike was taken to ANI regarding a block, but no one ever even had a conversation with him first to try and resolve it. Yes, I was passionate there. Sometimes too passionate. But there were few defending him, until some wonderful admins - Bbb23, DGG and The Bushranger - came along and balanced the scales a bit. Because of my participation there, my reputation took an immediate hit, which I knew was likely to happen because I was the only IP participating. But I felt so terrible for Mike that I didn't care. So I'm not in the best mood because of that situation. And then, to top it off, Toddst1, with whom I had a little skirmish with about six weeks ago, came to my talk page an re-added the shared IP template that hadn't been there in all that time. He claimed I removed it improperly, but I explained to him that WP:BLANKING did not exclude it from being removed at the time I removed it in May. It wasn't until 16 days later, that Todd himself added (or readded) that exclusion to WP:BLANKING. So I went to his page to discuss it and asked Jayron32 if he would be a neutral mediator. I even said I was fine with having the template if it's required; my understanding through a long Village Pump discussion a few weeks ago was that the IP template was not something that would be enforced. In any case, I told Bbb that I'd be fine with having the template but said I'd like to put it lower on the page since there are no rules that say it must be displayed at the top of the page. Finally, I'd ask that some admins please look at my talk page history over the past hour or so and review the flood of edits by I B Wright and 155blue. I would respectfully ask that an admin educate them on that type of editing. Again, I'm sorry to the admins I annoyed and offended. And no, Bbb, you're not on my "bad list". :) I think most of the admins I've dealt with are great, actually. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is you have a "bad list" as you refer to it. That's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and there is no place for that on Wikipedia. Can someone please put forward a proposed sanction for community ratification? Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Todd, there is no bad list. That was a term used solely by Bbb. So I was simply alluding it to it in my comment, to let him know he's not on this "bad list" he talked about. ;) And I sort of thought it was funny. I've never even used the terms good and bad lists. That's apparently just Bbb's way of describing his perception of how I see things. But you can ask him about that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me agred with BBB that you appear to have a "bad list." Beyond that you persist in classic WP:BATTLE behavior and there is no place for that on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I understand how it can appear that way. Hey, we all have editors we like and don't like. That's nothing new. But there's no good and bad list. Haha. I actually liked Triple B's description of that, though. It made me laugh the first time he used it. That's because initially, he and I didn't get along, and then we became pretty good friends on here. And I really respect him. So the good/bad thing was all his creation; I can't take any credit for it. The only problem is that some people thought he meant if literally. ;) But yeah, like all other editors, we have people we like more than others. That's life. That's Wikipedia. I'm sure I'm on your "bad editors" list, right? Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1

proposal closed for improvement - see Proposal 2 below

Given this IP's long pattern of acrimony and WP:BATTLE the editor currently editing at 76.189.109.155 is restricted from participating in discussions at noticeboards, may not blank his/her talk for 6 months. This restriction will persist if the user changes IPs. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC) I think the ban should be broader than the proposal but perhaps shorter in duration. There are two problem areas this proposal does not address, the harassment at user talk pages (obvious) and the problems in Wikipedia space other than at noticeboards (e.g., long protracted comments wanting to change WP:BLANKING). A more reasonable duration would probably be three months. Also, an exception to the noticeboard restriction would have to exist where 76 is clearly the subject of the discussion. BTW, I'm fairly certain that 76 has stated that he is male.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) How much more drama do you want here? I apologized sincerely and I meant it. Do you want a pound of my flesh? Are you trying to punish me or prevent something? Please let's not forget I have thousands of edits. I don't know how many. Maybe 2000, 3000. I have edited a lot of articles and participated in a lot of article discusssions. I tried to keep this simple. I was upset about Mike's treatment and I vented. I'm sorry about that. And I don't get this whole 1RR issue. The only revert issue is on my own talk page regarding this issue of whether the IP template has to go at the top or not. That's it. If there's a policy that says that, just show me and then we'll put the template at the top. Right now, it's on my page but just not at the top. So it's there and people can see it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC) And Todd, I have every right to blank my talk page as long as it doesn't violate WP:BLANKING. Let's just settle the issue of whether it has to go at the top or not. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) And why should I be restricted from noticeboards? Bbb23 said himself that I didn't cross any lines worth being blocked; just that I should tone it down. I will do that if I choose to participate at those boards. But honestly, I don't really like them. I was just passionate about that ANI because of the issue with Mike. So please stop all the attempts to be punitive here over issues that don't apply. I was rude to some admins on their talk pages and I feel bad about it. And it won't happen again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC) We're discussing taking away your privileges here because of your abuse. You have no rights, only privileges. That is why. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring/talk page issues

It's not just the admins that you have offended, your reasons for reverting edits which include "...stay the f[***] off of my talk page" are uncivil and have been offensive. If a welcome message is considered vandalism and moving an object to its proper place is disruptive editing, then what is right to do? In addition, it would be polite to notify me on my talk page the next that you mention me here.155blue (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

155blue, based on the numerous edits you made on my talk page, you apparently do not understand, or not aware of, WP:BLANKING, or the difference between a warning and a template. When someone asks you nicely to stay off their talk page and you come back and back and back and back, that's a big problem. The only way to get the message through to you was to be more assertive. And it worked. After I said, "i told you several times to stay the fuck off my talk page", you didn't return. ;) And as my history will show, I almost never use language like that. But I've never seen editors flooding someones talk page non-stop, like you and IB Wright did. And btw, you added an IP template to my page when there was one already there. In the future, when there is a contentious issue happening, you should let an admin handle it. But the last thing you should do is keep going back to someone's talk page when they ask you not to. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In WP:BLANKING it states and I quote:

"A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction

Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress)

Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).

For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address.

{{Noindex}} added to user pages and subpages under this guideline (except with agreement or by consensus). Note this can safely be removed from talk pages and subpages where it has no effect. (see below)"

(emphasis added)

As the shared IP notice has to be placed at the top of the page, I fully understand what you can and cannot delete.155blue (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

155blue, most of the rest of us are fully aware of what WP:BLANKING says, so there was no need to paste the entire policy here. And I gave it to you, remember? Apparently, you weren't aware of them because you put an edit summary that said "this warning needs to be kept". Obviously, warnings do not need to be kept. And there is nothing in WP:BLANKING that says the IP template must be displayed at the top of the page, which is one of the issues at hand. So please, will you allow the admins to discuss this with me? You're really not helping matters. Thank you. And btw, when you bold quoted material that isn't bolded in the source, you need to indicate that you did that by putting "(emphasis added)" at the end. The IP templates line is not bolded in the source material. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And despite the assertions made above, I too fully understand what our IP editor can and cannot delete. The above policy is quite clear, in my view. I B Wright (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

IB, please back away from this discussion and let the admins handle it. You flooded my talk page with edits and reverts - around 10 I believe - and easily surpassed the edit-warring limit. But edit-warring on someone else's talk page doesn't necessarily require even four reverts to violate the policy. And the part you're apparently not aware of is that reverting edits on one's own talk page (or user page) is exempt from 3RR (as long as it violates the TP guidlines). See WP:NOT3RR. So when you ignored my repeated requests to stay off my talk page and posted this comment that says, "And you have now exceeded WP:3RR so a block in now guaranteed", you obviously didn't know what you were talking about. Actually, it was you who violated 3RR. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor who cannot count. I only made seven (7) edits, and one of those was to remove a comment that somehow posted twice. At no time did I revert anything more than three times, so that makes you a liar. I may have reverted two different edits three times but that is not 3RR. I B Wright (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." - I don't think it's an issue in this case, but just so you know...It doesn't matter if they are different edits. --Onorem (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

76, it is self-evident that you violated Wikipedia's civility rules by saying my edits were "incompetent," and by saying "stay the f[***] off my talk page." You also violated the 3-revert rule by reverting so many edits, despite the good faith that you had in them. I stopped not because of your foul language but because of that rule that you seem to be fully oblivious to. At the third revert, I stopped and instead put a template on your page welcoming you to the wiki. By looking here you can see this. Also, I did signify that the bold was added by putting down "(bold added)". The issue was corrected at this edit by changing "bold added" to "emphasis added." Despite that, you dragged me into the debate on this page and I refuse to let you silence me. If you directly accuse me of anything, I will respond.155blue (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Again 155, you simply don't understand the 3RR and NOT3RR guidlelines. Both you and IB Wright were in violation of 3RR for your flood of edits on my talk page. So read the relevant policies and move on. And this is what's being referred to when one alludes to the concept of competence in editing. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• This behavioural guideline surrounding the Shared IP Notice is key, and since 76.* seems to feel they have been around AN/ANI long enough to make comments, they'll also know well that it's treated by the community as a policy, and is enforced by administrators when it becomes problematic... just like WP:SIG, and many others. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't object to the template. I've stated that several times. But there is no rule that says it must be displayed at the top of the page. It's on my page now, just not at the top. So what's the problem? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

But as you well know, there was an extremely lengthy debate at Village Pump several weeks ago about the exclusions. And at that time, the IP template exclusion was not on there. It was added/readded by Toddst1 two weeks later. So no one is debating that it's on the list now; the only issue whether there is a requirement or not for it to be displayed at the top of the page. Simple. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

These threads reinforce my concerns. This drama has a parasitic effect, consuming the time of others without bestowing any benefit to them or to the encyclopedia. Sweet words or no, you have become a time vampire. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you want, Dennis? Should I chop a limb off? I said I'm sorry for being rude. And I meant it. I honestly don't care if I get banned or not if that will make everyone feel better. But either way, I regret the way I vented at people. But I don't regret standing up for Mike. I felt terrible for him. So let's just settle the matter of whether the template is required to go at the top or not. Or do you just want me to stop editing altogether? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• To answer your question, what I want is an epiphany. Short of that, a clear understanding and path forward. I am getting the distinct feeling above that I'm being told what you think I want to hear, while you later debate the minutia template placement. The placement of that template is not the issue here and I can't remember having to debate one with an IP before. It shouldn't be an issue to begin with, and it is no more than a distraction. You do care if you get "banned" or you wouldn't be here. What I want is honesty, an understanding, and less drama, which is no different than I want from anyone else. It isn't complicated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why do you feel terrible about Mike? Did he ask you to come to his aid? Do you suffer from White Knight Syndrome? The thread was about "reminding an admin about WP:BITE" ... nobody was going to lose their sysop status, or even get their pee-pee slapped. You continually butted your nose in, even when explained the history - my colleague OrangeMike knows full well how to take care of himself, as was evidenced when he finally did post in that thread. After all, he's been in the same predicament before, and is well-aware of his defence tactics. The template stays at the top so that nobody has to go around to find it and re-adding it when they do not see it at the top. As it's a shared IP, it's not your talkpage - it's the talkpage of whoever uses that address, and next week it might not be you, so logically it needs to be left at the standard. Finally, since you spent the better part of this day refusing to read, and refusing to drop the stick, you are indeed a detriment to this project at this - you wasted hours of my time and others because you couldn't take advice. You should indeed be banned until such a time as you're willing to drop the WP:BATTLE and maybe actually apologize to the people you've been fecking with all day(✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Why do you love your mom? Do you suffer from family-ties syndrom? People generally cannot control the way they feel and if he felt bad for Mike, he likely perceived something about the situation that he can't articulate in a way that is understandable to others. Feelings are not always rationale and asking why someone feels the way they do is an asinine question. No one wasted your hours. You volunteered them giving the advice.--v/r - TP 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I've resisted responding to your comments, TP, only because I'm not a big fan of threaded comments after a vote. But I think you're being a bit unfair in your response to Bwilkins. People may not be able to control how they feel, but they can control how they act based on their feelings. 76's problem isn't how he feels. 76's problem is his conduct based on those feelings. Defending someone (just as I'm doing for Bwilkins) is often a commendable thing, and it doesn't bother me that 76 defends editors. The problem is that he goes on and on and on. It reminds me of an I Love Lucy episode (everything reminds me of I Love Lucy episodes :-) ). Ethel defended Lucy against threats by Mrs. Trumbull. Afterward, Ethel went around telling everyone the story of her noble defense until Lucy lost her temper. That caused a big fight between the two friends. Ricky and Fred tried to mediate with their respective wives. And when Ethel was arguing her side to Fred, he said something like, "I know, I know, you've told me, you've told me." Put in the Wikipedia context, we're all familiar with the WP:IDHT syndrome. When an editor keeps saying the same thing over and over and over, that repetition causes drama to no beneficial objective and a waste of resources. In 76's case, it went beyond just the defense of editors. It delved into policies and guidelines and complaints to administrative noticeboards. Anyway, I'm not expecting you to change your mind; I'm just defending poor defenseless Bwilkins (ha!) and trying to shed a little more light on some of the bases for those of us who support a ban. I'll shut up now.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The day Bwilkins is rendered defenseless, we're screwed.--v/r - TP 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Given this IP's long pattern of acrimony, WP:BATTLE, WP:WIKILAWYERING, WP:Harassment and drama, the editor currently editing at 76.189.109.155 is restricted from:

1. participating in discussions at noticeboards unless he is the subject of the discussion
2. participating in discussions and/or changes to policies, essays and/or guidelines
3. harassing or being uncivil to any other user or admin (broadly constructed)
4. removing from or moving anything on his/her talk page

This sanction will be in effect for 3 months. This restriction will persist if the user changes IPs or registers as a user. Any violations of these conditions will result in an immediate block and an extension of this sanction.

Please comment below as to whether you support or oppose this sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the addition that the Shared IP template stays at the top where it's supposed to be (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and goodbye I feel terrible about lashing out at the various admins because of my frustration about the OrangeMike situation. I've already given heartfelt apology here more than once. But apparently, that and my history of two to three thousand edits, isn't enough. So I will not be editing any more. Regarding the template, it's not an issue any more. It's the only thing on my talk page now. All the best to all of you. And, again, I'm sorry to anyone I was rude to. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposed sanctions are outrageously inappropriate, unwarranted, and inapplicable. And there is virtually no evidence (diffs) to back up all of the generic allegations that have been strategically lumped together as one. I could have said some things in a friendlier way, but overall, I crossed no lines and I stand by the general points I made. If I were a registered user and not an IP, I don't think we'd even be here. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This is a much better proposal than Todd's first attempt (thanks for listening and doing the hard work). I particularly like the fact that a ban avoids blocking 76 as I still think he can be an asset when he's focusing on article content. I know he has said he's leaving, but people have, of course, been known to change their minds about that sort of thing (retired, unretired, etc.), so formalizing the ban is still a good idea. Two small points about the ban. First, the fourth restriction should be eliminated if 76 creates a registered account before the ban expires as it would no longer be necessary (existing policy would be good enough). Second, a very small point: "user or admin" should be just user - last time I heard admins are users, too. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support A diva exit is not a reason to discontinue the discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

+1 Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I commend Bbb23 for raising this issue in such a calm, articulate way. Unfortunately, 76.189.109.155 has indeed proven to be a drain on resources, with their repetitive, antagonistic notice board and talk page posts. My only concern with this proposal, is that after three months, the user may return to the same behavior. I hope that instead they will focus on actually building the encyclopedia without the needless drama. There are many thousands of articles that can benefit from editing without ever touching a talk page. - MrX 01:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Although I’m not a sysop, I express the full support for 1, 2, 3. Though, I think that 4 came too late, because 76.189.109.155 persistently refactored his user_talk in order to form and keep his social image (contrary to the prescribed use of the user_talk as an interaction device), expunging all remarks which showed him in a negative or otherwise undesired (for him) context, so… it just does not have much sense now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Whilst I appreciate that the purpose of this is to encourage an editor to edit in as co-operative a manner as possible, this particular method is not usually successful. On every previous occasion that I have seen it tried, the result is usually the same. A set of restrictions is placed on some disruptive editor. For a few days, said editor abides by the terms of the restrictions. After four or five days, a test edit is made that is outside of the restrictions. When nothing is done about it, then after a week or so, it's business as usual and the whole cycle starts again. I B Wright (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  The problem with 76.189.… is not about cooperation. It is about clueless lawyering and chatting/flooding attitude at discussion pages that went unabated for several months, i.e. about his use of the discussion mechanism for aims that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Now, when restrictions are going to be established, I’ll just apply my rollback if I encountered any 76.189.…’s loathsome social-networking stuff. Then, he will either start an edit war that leads to blocking, or will unable to continue with his previous behaviour. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure 76 is the problem I first thought. Not sure. Yesterday, I listed a bunch of IPs in his neighbourhood who've been editing over the last 12 months (archived here). There appears to be two regular editors using that range but I haven't teased them apart. I've had a bit of a look, and haven't found anything any more disruptive than I see happening here all day every day from a lot of editors in good standing, such as myself, Carrite, Charmlet, Orangemike, Demiurge, etc. and there seems to be plenty of constructive editing happening. That's how it seems after a superficial scan.

I initially extended the usual level of distrust and contempt that I do to IPs who dare to oppose me, but I'm wondering now if I've been too harsh and hasty. As I say, I don't know yet, because I haven't reviewed the editor's work properly - and I don't have time today - but I just wanted to pop this here and register my concern. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose If "Drama" is all the subject is accused of, everyone on AN and ANI could likewise face the same sanction. We don't sanctionfor participating in drama, we sanctionfor causing it. It has not been demonstrated that the IP causes the drama. The chief complaint appears to be "IP points out people's fallacies and it's a bit annoying" to paraphrase (sorry Bbb23). 155Blue's complaint is even more benign. "stay the f[***] off of my talk page" is routinely used and I could probably use it as a search term on ANI and pull up half a thousand results where it was said that it is not a personal attack to use curse words when telling someone to go away. It is only a personal attack when describing the user. Further, the "incompetent" remark is again benign. We routinely call people incompetent, we have an essay for it. So, what do we have? We have an IP who is more experienced than the average IP, a regular, knowledgeable, and vocal. If he had an account, we'd give him a barnstar for his insights. Not really sanctionable material here. You could sanctionme on the same grounds.--v/r - TP 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Further, I don't see a "bad boy list" from this IP. Vernacular was introduced by another user, the IP picked it up for simplicity sake, and now it's being turned around on him as if it was his own. A thought was injected into his mind and now he's being blamed for it. This thread should just dissipate and the IP should be strongly recommended to register an account for his own sake to avoid headaches like this.--v/r - TP 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  And also, I don't think the IP even has a nice and bad list. He calls it like he sees it and doesn't avoid crossing friend-boundaries. You can like a person and disagree with them, as I've just done with most of you, and this guy does just that. You can also speak on behalf of people you don't like, as the IP may have been doing with OrangeMike. You can't judge a person's feelings about others based on single instances of what they do and likewise you can't judge people on how their mind sees different perspectives. This guy doesn't seem like a deliberate troll. He seems to me that he's insightful and vocal. I don't consider myself an apologist, but there are no other factor's in this IP's behavior other than they are an IP and IPs carry a stereotype. If there was trolling actions, such as comissioning a painting of Jimbo with an unusual body part for painting, then okay. But the actions demonstrated (by 155blue) are not outside the ordinary of registered accounts.--v/r - TP 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Account or not is not important: 76.189.… has certain easily recognizable patterns (I do not specify them for an obvious reason) which will assure his identification from an account, from an IP of another ISP, or wherever. What insights are you speaking about, indeed? Thousands people improve English Wikipedia, not excluding discussion pages, with actually useful insights. Most of them are not grasping for a special attention, do not ask for special preferences or protection. Of course, any active editor has conflicts, and many editors sometimes (or permanently) are rude, and sometimes drain resources of other editors. They intend to do useful things, not just to make an edit once in two or three minutes to express themselves. They have conflicts because they build the encyclopedia, not make several edits in the article space just to provide a possibility to engage in lawyering without an immediate ejection from the site. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  There is a bias against non-conformist insights here. "Useful insights"? What a fucking piece of crap that thought was. It's only useful if you deem it so because it conforms to your point of view and it's not useful if you don't want to hear it. Tell me, Incnis Mrsi, are my comments "useful insights"?--v/r - TP 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  I have an impression that you primarily demonstrate your non-conformity, not try to investigate the concrete case. I am sure 76.189.109.155 has a handful of really useful (and not completely trivial) edits, and if something has to be said in his defence, then it would be his minor- or medium-valued improvements to some (few) articles. His entire metapedian activity is wrong, clueless in its goals, and demonstrably disruptive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Demonstratably disruptive has not been demonstrated...at all period dot. To be clear: this entire thread contains exactly 2 diffs of 76.189's behavior, by 155Blue, and I've addressed them both as well below the bar for account holders and even IP editors. So demonstrate it or shut up. What you're doing is making accusations but you've failed to prove them. Everyone in this thread should face the sanctions except for the IP for making personal attacks without diffs. And for your record, I call it like I see it. Not to be non-conformist, not to be different, but to be from my perspective. Just about everyone in this thread, with the exception of you and the IP, has seen me agree or disagree with them or the group at one point or another.--v/r - TP 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Point taken… I will not excavate the worst 76.189.109.155 for TParis, but will show a typical 76.189.109.155, namely two threads full of him at other user’s user_talk, and a part of his persistent efforts on maintaining his own user_talk. If it is a good metapedianism for you, then… sorry, we are in opposite camps, seriously. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  For 7000 edits and global rollback, I'd think you know the difference between a diff and a link. But since you brought it up, 76.189 brought a case of a personal attack to Toddst1's attention with a rather nice template. Toddst1 responded to it with more personal attacks and you blame the IP. Go figure. Your second "diff" was you creating a waring about "defacing" an editors talk page for adding an ANI notice. I call that baiting and provocation. All in all, you've got an IP that removes posts from an IP talk page, for which I haven't seen a guideline against, people calling him a troll, him feeling that folks are being passive aggressive...I'm sorry, what exactly am I looking for? This is why I asked for diffs. Show me exactly whats wrong and exactly what policy you think it violates. You've got zilch. I'm even more convinced of that now with your two links.--v/r - TP 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  “"defacing" an editors talk page for adding an ANI notice”… what a rubbish do you talking here? Could you attentively read the relevant diff? BTW, I have about 21,000 edits across the Empire, although it is not relevant to our question. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  What exactly do you want me to see in that diff? It was an ANI notice when I responded to you a minute ago and it's still an ANI notice after I clicked on it now. What exactly is the defacement?--v/r - TP 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  If TParis thinks that defacing a User: page is an appropriate means to “notify a user”, and refers to my reaction to it as to “baiting and provocation”, then it is not surprising that the same TParis feels that the entire history of flooding of numerous pages with eloquences, of cleansing the own user_talk: from “bad” comments, of lawyering, of distracting multiple users on hundreds of petty pretexts, and of other forms of grasping for attention are legitimate contributions to Wikipedia. Anyway, I’m happy to see that the majority of administration tries to prevent slipping Wikipedia into a social network infested with babblers and vanity mongers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  TParis, now that Incnis Mrsi has told you his version of the story, here's what actually happened. And, unlike Incnis, I'll show you all of the relevant diffs to prove it. What happened was that I accidentally clicked on the "User page" tab instead of the "Talk" tab. Period. And for that honest mistake, I received this hostile warning from Incnis, condescendingly telling me that I "defaced" the edtior's page. I quickly responded, explaining my error. I actually felt embarassed when I found out I did that because it was such an absent-minded mistake that I'd never done before (or since). Then I of course added the template to the editor's talk page right away, and included a comment to let him know what I had done and to apologize for accidentally putting it on his user page. Btw, the defacing claim didn't even make sense to me; if that's what someone did to vandalize someone's user page, it would be the weakest (and most ineffective) attempt at vandalism I've ever seen. And do editors who purposesly vandalize ever fix it and apologize for it? But the disturbing part about this now is that Incnis fully knows what happened, was educated and reamed by admin Drmies about it, and yet Incnis still chose to come here tonight to try and convince you that I had done something malicious. I don't like seeing editors get sanctioned unless they really deserve it, but blatant, out-of-context lies like this to make another look terrible really deserves consequences. Especially when the target is already under major fire at a noticeboard like this. Now hopefully you and others will understand why Incnis so enthusiastically supports the proposed sanctions here? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  I expressed my views about then-observed 76.189.…’s attitudes some time ago. By the time it was only a minority view. But 76.189.…’s attitude did not improve for more than a month (although at some moments of time I supposed that it does improve) and now it is a plurality view. It is our site, of the people who build the encyclopedia. Have a nice day, I now part to make useful edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, it does tend to happen that way. When you're aggressive towards other users and call their edits defacement, their temperment toward you seems to not improve. That's a given.--v/r - TP 13:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support IP has been a waste of time long enough. I saw his drama mongering for what it was 7 weeks ago. I mentioned before that the IPs goal is to stir the pot, look for reasons to harass and wikilawyer. Bluntly, there is every reason to believe the IP is just a previously banned editor. Article improvement isn't significant enough to justify having to put up wit the rest of the trolling nonsense.--MONGO 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  "goal is to stir the pot, look for reasons to harass and wikilawyer" That's often said about people who say things we don't want to hear.--v/r - TP 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  @TP: Your blanket dismissal of your fellow editors' valid concerns is less than compelling, and your attempts to cast shame on the folks commenting here is beneath you. If you're having a bad day, may I suggest stepping away from this for a while, and perhaps coming back later with a clearer perspective? - MrX 18:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  I've had a rather good day, actually. I'm not upset at MONGO, I just disagree with that point is all.--v/r - TP 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry. I think my threading confused the issue. I was referring to your prior posts here, here and here. - MrX 19:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think I need to click those to know which you're referring to, but my answer is that I have a clear head at the moment. I'm happily plugging award in Autodesk 3ds Max 2013 working on some animations and replying during my renders. Nothing bad about the day that could be causing me to react others than as I intend. The only thing that has bothered me are Incnis Mrsi's comments.--v/r - TP 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose specifically for point 3 which states that the user is restricted from harassing or being uncivil to any other user or admin (broadly constructed). It's supposed to be unacceptable for anyone to do this at any time. It getting a bit ridiculous if we have to start spelling out "you're now banned from being mean". Taroaldo ✉ 22:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• (breaking my "rule"). It's rare for an editor to be blocked for incivility. However, when incivility is built into a ban and the editor is uncivil, the result is usually a block for violating the ban. You, of course, are still free to oppose the ban for whatever reason, but I thought it might be useful to address your point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Which points to a larger issue at Wikipedia, which is the lax attitude toward chronic incivility. Many decent editors reduce or stop their involvement in the project because of a small number of [uncivil word] people who make it continually unpleasant to volunteer here. Perhaps if it were less rare to get blocked for incivility more people would stick around.

Thank you for explaining the technical reasoning behind the wording -- given the way the process is structured, it makes sense. Taroaldo ✉ 02:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• So aren't you throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater here? Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per TP. There are many accusations of misbehavior by the IP but only two diffs have been advanced to substantiate these claims. Nor do the two diffs constitute convincing grounds for sanctions.Tristan noir (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. 76's "goodbye" didn't last long. 155blue had filed a report at ANEW against 76. I declined it. Now 76, not to be outdone, filed a report against I B Wright, as well as commenting on my decline. I've declined 76's report as well. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - First, I sincerely want to thank Taroaldo, Tristan noar, and especial TP, for expressing their opposition to the proposed sanctions. It means a lot to me that you would stand up to a strong crowd who supports them. Having said that, I still will not be editing any more, as I said above, particularly based on the handling of this matter. But I felt the obligation to address these existing matters because for me, this is about my reputation, not my editing.

  I'm sorry, but the way this matter has been handled by Bbb23, Bwilkins, Toddst1, and Dennis Brown is extremely disturbing. Interestingly, they happen to be the four editors I offended on their talk pages. So my alleged "victims" are apparently also trying to be my executioners. The way the rushed into creating these unwarranted and inapplicable sanctions. Look at how quickly they got to the proposals and voting, even after I sincerely apologized (for my tone, not my messages). The way they handled this discussion is equivalent to a kangaroo court. They provide practically no evidence (diffs) to support their generic, out-of-context, and exaggerated allegations, nor do they show that anything they're alleging warrants any sanctions, let alone these very harsh ones. I won't even get into all the baseless rhetoric presented by numerous editors. Nor the complete disregard for my numerous apologies, which I meant and still mean. It's rather remarkable that the four admins, and others, are lumping all of their generic complaints into one big issue, rather thing addressing individual allegations and providing diffs to support each of them.

  Regarding their four proposed santions, they're almost too outrageous to even believe. (1) Banning me from noticeboards for months because some editors don't like my passion in discussions even though I've never violated any polices (although I admit I tend to repeat myself too much at times). Where are the diffs to prove I'm "out of line" on noticeboards and deserve to be banned from them? (2) Banning me from discussions about policies, essays and guidelines. Again, please provide diffs to show evidence of why I should not be allowed to post in any of those. (3) Banned from "being uncivil" to anyone. Could there be any sanction more outrageous than that one? Seriously? If this particular sanction had already applied to everyone, all four of the admins leading this effort to banish me would've been blocked numerous times, not to mention at least 80% of Wikipedia's other editors. That sanction alone is probably the best evidence of how off the rails this vigorous attempt to punish me has become. (4) Banning me from removing anything from my talk page. This one is almost as outrageous as #3. So no matter what I, or someone else, puts on my talk page, I would not be allowed to remove it? Again... seriously?

  It should also be noted that although I expressed my sincere concerns about two editors (I B Wright and 155blue) who edit warred on my talk page for heaven's sake, and I asked for the admins here to please address it, they completely ignored me. In fact, amazingly, Toddst1 went to the talk page of I B Wright and instead of telling them they were edit warring at my talk page, he simply informed the editor of this AN. Then 155blue commented in that thread and asked if they had to stop editing my talk page. Instead of saying, "Yes, you both are edit warring!", Bbb23 merely tells them to stop editing on my talk page "at least for the time being", until the AN is done. That of course was equivalent to saying that they did nothing wrong and, hey, you may even be able to go back and edit the user's talk page again if we're successful in sanctioning the IP at AN.

  The perplexing behavior didn't stop there. 155blue files this report at the edit warring noticeboard about me. You will see Pburka's response to 155blue, which is very telling. You will also see that Bbb23 himself declined it, but instead of saying I didn't edit war, he simply said it's being handled at AN. You will also see my reply to Bbb. And since none of the four admins would address or even acknowledge my request to talk to the two editors about their edit warring on my talk page, I filed this report at AN/EW about I B Wright, who reverted on my talk page five times in an hour. I didn't want to, but clearly the four admins I asked for help on this weren't going to do anything about it.

  After sleeping on this overnight last night, I still decided that I don't want to edit any more. But my wife and kids urged me to respond because they're very hurt by it. They're actually more upset than I am about how this discussion has been handled by the four admins. So I agreed. My wife read TP's various comments and was moved to tears by them. So for that TP, I thank you so much. Finally, I again apologize for the manner in which I expressed some of my comments to the four admins, but, overall, I stand by my points in them. Sadly, I honestly believe that if I were a registered account and not an IP editor, we wouldn't even be here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support the proposed sanctions. The above screed clearly indicates that 76.189.109.155 is either incapable of avoiding unnecessary drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling. If the IP wishes to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, the proposed measures do not prevent this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that Bbb23 of all people took it upon himself to decline my report at the edit warring noticeboard. The guy who started this AN against me and wants to ban my participation in four areas actually thought it was appropriate to throw out a legitimate edit warring report because it was me who posted it. So apparently Bbb23 thinks that other editors are immune from sanctions if their violations are against me. It's interesting that Bbb23 says my edit warring report against another editor should not be handled because I am being reported here. That makes absolutely no sense. There is not even an attempt here of determining if I'm guilty of edit warring - on my own talk page, no less! I would ask that a reasonable admin please address my report at the edit warring noticeboard and judge it on its own merits. I didn't want to report there, but I asked very nicely here for admins to please talk to the editor, but they ignored it.

  Finally, AndyTheGrump, I would suggest you take a good hard look at your own block log before you come to a discussion like this and support harsh sanctions for an editor and make hostile claims about me without providing any evidence to back it up. With your notorious background, that takes real guts. Obviously, you think I should not defend myself against these allegations. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Baiting and taking the bait, that's all.--v/r - TP 02:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...like I said, drama-mongering, or trolling. At this point, it really makes little difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Andy, you apparently need a reminder that will show why you should stop throwing stones.[1][2] Your reply to the indefinite block you received several months ago was very intriguing: "I no longer consider editing Wikipedia a 'privilege' - not while the gross hypocrisy concerning 'civility' continues. Make rude remarks about a Wikipedian, and ANI fills up with the pitchfork mob. Systematically slander entire communities...and fuck-all ever gets done about it. This stinks, and I no longer want to play any part in it." Pitchfork mob? Sounds very familiar. Look Andy, had you supported the sanctions and provided a civil, well-reasoned explanation, and included relevant diffs, I would have been fine with that. But instead, you come here and spout a bunch of rheotrical insults, and also exhibit total hypocricy. Honestly, with your background you really have no credibility in discussions like this. And I am not going to let your unprovoked attacks go unanswered. It's actually sad because I'd think that someone with your long history of incivility and problems with other editors would be much more understanding of what I'm dealing with here. And you don't have to worry, once this matter is resolved, I won't be editing any more. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "you don't have to worry, once this matter is resolved, I won't be editing any more". 76.189.109.155 has now stated that he no longer intends to edit Wikipedia in any constructive manner. I suspect at this point the simplest course of action would probably be an immediate block to prevent further drama. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Really? Show us the "in any constructive manner" part? Do you ever behave properly or are you always this hostile? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

An independent opinion: According to this, he has made one articlespace edit in the past three days out of (so far) 116. I call that not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, yet has illustrated a knack for disrupting the Wikipedia. Please exercise the harshest measures necessary.--Launchballer 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What a waste of time. Doc talk 08:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree. Launchballer, actually it's been a little over two days (about 54 hours), not three days. Your own link shows that. In any case, once this AN and the matters surrounding it happened on Sunday, I chose to permanently stop editing articles and just deal with the existing issues before I stop editing altogether. I didn't realize that there was a minimum requirement for how much editing one must do in article space. Curiously, you failed to mention that I have probably around 2500 edits and many of them to article space and article talk pages, among others, to help improve articles. But if you want ignore my entire history and focus on just the past couple days - the time you know I've been dealing with this drama - then there's nothing I can do about that. You didn't provide any diffs that would show the "harshest measures possible" are warranted. Or any measures at all. I see that you returned a few months ago from an indefinite block given in 2009. I'd think you'd be more understanding of how important evidence is when you are accused of wrongdoing and being threatened with harsh sanctions. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be loving all this attention. Doc talk 09:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, quite the opposite. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I hear ya. Doc talk 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Launchballer - People arn't allowed to take a break from editing during a highly stressful period where they are facing sanctions without any evidence and then we use their own reaction to these unfair accusations as further evidence against them? What a wonderful place this is.--v/r - TP 12:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the supporting arguments. Doc talk 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are none. Have you seen any diffs?--v/r - TP 12:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I have, yes. Doc talk 04:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly, per TP (above and below). Writegeist (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: So a group of proles and admins trash an IP prole with whom they have a history of conflict; the prole stands up to them, vigorously defending himself and presenting comprehensive reviews and analysis of the opposing proles' and admins' modus operandi; which elicits more sneers and jeers, as if from playground bullies; Andy the Grump and assorted other bods pile on; and on and on and on, round and round it goes. An inspiring spectacle, and a fine example of how Wikipedia works! Bravo chaps! But TP, you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you gone rogue? Don't you know you moppets are supposed to close ranks when you're taking down a prole? For Heaven's sake man, get a grip on your esprit de corps des serpillères before it's too late. Writegeist (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as second choice. 'I know I quit, but my wife and kids urged me, and this looks like a good place for telling AndyTheGrump about his notorious background'? This guy's a hoot. I suggest a siteban. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC).

The "my wife and kids were upset by this" made me laugh. I'll bet he told them "I'm being picked on unfairly on Wikipedia" instead of "I behaved like a jerk to 3 respected admins AND some Bwilkins guy, and now they want to censure me". His complete inability to acknowledge his authorship of this situation is the whole problem here. Otherwise, my comments and concerns would be very different (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely you can see how Incnis' own behavior contributes to inflaming the situation. I'm not saying 76.189 is innocent, I don't think I ever have. What I am saying is that other factors, namely Incnis and 155blue, have done nothing but pour gallons of gasoline all over this situation and appears on the surface to be issues with the IP are in some cases merely poking the IP until he growls and then saying "Look look, see how vicious he is?"--v/r - TP 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support on the basis of the IPs behavior on this very thread. (I'm also a bit bewildered by TParis's fervent championing of the IPs case, an instance of an otherwise good admin with a peculiar blind spot.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If this IP really intends to contribute to the encyclopedia, this would allow them to do so. Their behaviour in this discussion is way out of line; "Goodbye" four days ago yet still now huge walls of text and arguing left right and centre. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I have past experience of this IP's behaviour, and am sorry to see that, based the conduct described and demonstrated in this very thread, little or nothing has changed. I'd also like to thank Anthonyhcole for this list [3], which certainly shows evidence of similar battleground behaviour under past IP addresses from what is almost certainly this editor (note "haha" comments in particular). e.g. [4][5][6][7] Slp1 (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't know about Anthony's list. Thanks, Anthony, and thanks, Slp1, for highlighting it. Any small doubt I had about the need for a ban has been eliminated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per TP and Writegeist. The "arguments" and "diffs" offered to support sanctions make my stomach turn. It's telling when TP's dispassion and objectivity is mischaracterized as "fervent", "vocal opposition", etc., when he has simply shown some principle. (Also telling when the sanctions author, previously in a dispute with 76 but non-responsive to 76, tried to "boldly close" counter to a simple policy he surely knew but decided to violate anyway in rush to squish 76. And then try to blame TP for the close. [Yeah, right.]) There's too much prejudice and Mack Truck mentality and manipulation going on in the thread to permit any transparency or fairness to 76. On the basis of smelling too much I think this thread should be thrown away and wait till there is something real and not just full-bodied prejudice against 76. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Request for closure. If there's an uninvolved admin out there who can tear themselves away from the Eric discussion, closure here would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose 1, 2, and 4. Support 3, but that is a requirement of all of us. Deleting something from one's own talk page is never a problem, and is only prohibited of unblock requests while the block is in effect, and that just to make it easier to review future unblock requests. Apteva (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  A requirement of all of us? Do you really not understand the difference between occasional incivility from legitimate editors and avalanches of obnoxious postings of …, an important component of his modus operandi? The same about 1 and 2: chattering on noticeboards and proposals is usually not a good conduct of any user, but to those who improve Wikipedia it is permitted. To those who merely express themselves it has not to be permitted, indeed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Analysis

I've posted this analysis on a couple talk pages and I'll leave it here as well.

• The entire thread, including the ban discussion, contains exactly four diffs of 76.189's actual doing:
  1. [8] A comment made after User:Dennis Brown had just accused him of Wiki-lawyering and not being here for the right reasons. A pretty mild response, I would've been a bit more -fruitful- in my language.
  2. [9] A comment User:Bbb23 said was polite
  3. [10] After Kudpung pointed to a dismissive essay when the IP was concerned about Bbb23's revert that doesn't even make sense to me why he'd revert it.
  4. [11] A silly mistake that was then called defacement by User:Incnis Mrsi, which he later admitted was wrong, but now has returned to calling defacement
• There have been no diffs presented to support the accusations in the proposal. The diffs that were provided occured on User_talk space and the first two parts of the sanctions don't even deal with those. The third is a given for all users, and the last, as I demonstrate below, is inaccurate.
• The bad boy list was language Bbb23 introduced, it was picked up by the IP in a humorous tone here because Bbb23 introduced the vernacular. Toddst1 turned around that around as evidence the IP actually had one and said it was classic battleground behavior. There is no evidence of a bad boy list, the comment was made in response to Bbb23 and was meant to be funny.
• The IP has numerously received accusations of "drama-mongering unless obliged to, or is simply trolling", without diffs, responded rather politely, later with diffs showing the same behavior by his accuser, and for merely defending himself he is accused of more drama mongering.
• The IP has removed comments from his talk page. The policy, WP:BLANKING, says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user...For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address." The IP has been using the IP for a solid 2 months, has been the only user to use that IP, and there is no evidence of use by others users. So a "dynamic IP" notice was misguided at best, trolling at worst and the policy quoted is inapplicable. In addition, the policy only covers removing this dynamic IP notice, not any other discussion on the page since the other comments do not "indicate other users share the same IP address". So the removal of comments by others was acceptable and the edit warring, and further warnings, to restore the removed content was a misunderstanding of policy on the part of User:155blue and User:I B Wright.
• Finally, he has apologized more than once.

--v/r - TP 16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the talk pages that TP put this notice on, but the ensuing discussion at Dennis's talk page (which has now apparently ended) might be useful to others to read and there's the collateral benefit of reading another one my truly wonderful sitcom anecdotes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right I should have done that.--v/r - TP 17:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

MrX's as well.--v/r - TP 17:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to TParis' analysis

• To address your first and second points, here are some diffs that I believe support the premises for the sanctions (acrimony, WP:BATTLE, WP:WIKILAWYERING, WP:Harassment and drama).

(Context for the next several diffs: "Mike, a communications/PR person hired by St. Johns County, Florida, posted these comments at the help desk." This was beginning of what resulted in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Longtime admin needs advice about WP:BITE)

• On your third point, I don't know if 76.189 actually keeps a "bad admin list", but it seems to me that they view Wikipedia as a battleground. His ingratiating behavior toward Orangemike contrasts starkly with his interactions with admins that have apparently slighted him (DennisBrown, Bbb23, BWilkins). The existence of such a list is not a factor in my !vote, but his very conspicuous, polarized interactions with admins are. It leaves me with the impression that he is here to prove a point, and not build an encyclopedia.
• On your fourth point, I would stop short of an accusation of trolling. However, 76.189.109.155's reactions to Andy's blunt comments does not help his case.
• On your fifth point, I don't much care what this user does on their user page or user talk page, within reason, and while they are in control of the IP address. There was some undesirable behavior by several users involved in that fiasco. None of that factored into my !vote.
• On your sixth point, it's great that he apologized. It would be be fantastic if he would agree not to add to noticeboard and talk page drama in the future. Since that is unlikely to happen, the proposed sanctions seem to be the next best alternative. - MrX 20:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I guess I just have trouble seeing those diffs described in those terms if they were from a registered account. I'm not accusing you of intentional or exclusive IP bias, but I've seen that same kind of attitude, from myself sometimes (in this very discussion), and it's hard for me to see it as intentionally disruptive; or even just disruptive. I don't know, I wasn't in those conversations, and I understand you weren't either, but thanks for at least pointing out what specifically is at dispute.--v/r - TP 22:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it was the steadfast removal to drop the stick and further the attacks that became disruptive. Individually, the diffs are mild - all together it's a vastly different story (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Response by 76.189 to the comments above. Hatting as I advised, at 76's request, for length sake. --v/r - TP 18:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, if the above list of quotes isn't a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Haha. So thank you for posting it! Putting a long list of mild, non-violating, random, out-of-context quotes and then, amazingly, labeling each of them with a big, bold tag of the editor's personal characterization of each of them (Wikilawyering, Battleground, Drama, Harassment) is downright ballsy. And I'm the one being accused of drama?? Haha. Why even include the bolded labels like that? And for each one? Do you think you need to tell other editors how each comment should be characterized? Like they can't decide for themselves how they see them? I actually love how that list was presented because it is a textbook example of poisoining the well. Yes, let's just find any random comment the IP makes and pick one of the negative descriptors with which to label it... in bold, of course. And for all of them, let's link the entire quote, as if the presentation isn't already dramatic enough with the big, bold, ugly descriptions. Haha. I have to say, it took a lot of guts to display the list in that manner instead of just simply saying something like, "Here are some quotes that I think prove the IP is causing drama: [diff][diff][diff][diff]..." So thanks for reinforcing my point about exactly what's going on here. Perhaps the most amazing part of that list of quotes is that had it been a registered editor who said many of those things, they would have praised for them, not assualted. There of course are several huge problems with this obvious and ridiculous attempt to paint me in a very bad light. First and foremost, although a few of the comments are not said in the friendliest manner, they are all quite tame and in fact many of them are very civil and and perfectly on-point with regard to the relevant discussion. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the the points being made in each of them is totally irrelevant. Thousands of editors, including most of you, make comments like these all the time. So they're absolutely no different than what most of you say. But registered editors saying things like this don't get a second look and are seen as perfectable acceptable. But if an IP, especially one who has more than a basic grasp of how Wikipedia works, says them, they get trashed and are labeled (in bold) as the editor did above, or worse, called a troll. Although I've hardly ever used the term, if an IP calls someone a troll, he gets mobbed with attacks. But when registered editors calls someone a troll, it's perfectly fine. Just read this discussion. Let's call this precisely what it is: IP discrimination, pure and simple. And everyone knows it. One important point that the editor who posted that list failed to mention is that the first 10 or so quotes are from one discussion; the ANI about Orange Mike, where an admin was reported without anyone ever talking to him first about the matter. So let's put a little context into the matter here. You'll see in that discussion that Bwilkins literally tried to silence me by threatening to block me if I said anything else in the discussion. He backed down as soon as another admin, Bbb23, came in and said he disagreed with that threat. Again, this is a perfect example of IP discrimination. Do you think any registered editor would've been threatened with an immediate block simply for participating in a good-faith manner in a discussion, even if they were being more vocal than others? Of course not. Yes, I was repeating myself a bit too much, and I acknowledged that, but Mike had few defenders and a number of editors were addressing me directly, apparently not seeing points I had made previously. So when someone speaks directly to you or to a point you've made, you respond. That's how it works. TP explained that in this discussion. But so what if someone talks a lot; we don't threaten to banish editors from discussions simply because they're passionate about the topic, let alone threaten them with immediate blocks for doing so. That is admin abuse and I said it. And so have many registered editors, who do not get threatened like that. So - pardon the French - give me a fucking break if you think that is an acceptable way to treat any editor, IP or not, who is participating in a civil, good-faith manner. Another giant problem with this list is that it completely fails to balance the scales by presenting any diffs from my two to three thousand edits that would present me in a positive light. We wouldn't want to show any of those, would we? ;) But even the list above shows absolutely nothing that violated any rules and certainly nothing that would warrant any sanctions, let alone the four ridiculous ones being proposed that have absolutely nothing to do with what is being alleged. And, again, if neutral editors read the list of quotes above, they would label many of them with positive descriptors, and praise them, not boldly label them as malicious as the editor who's supporting the sanctions strategically did. I'm confident that most neutral editors would read many of the the quotes above and laugh at the bold descriptions that have been slapped on each of them. They would say, "Uh, so what's wrong with what he said??" Yeah, a few are a bit snide, but certainly not even close to the vast incivility that someone like AndyTheGrump has exhibited for many years. But of course he's registered and most editors just turn their heads every time he makes completely inappropriate comments. If he were an IP, he would've been kicked to the curb many years ago, and you all know it. I'm an angel compared to Andy, but most editors are simply afraid to stand up to someone like Andy. But he's not the only viscious registered editor who's been around for years; there are many others. He just happens to be one of the most notorious. Take Incnis Mrcis, for example, who went out of his way above to deceive TP into believing that I had "defaced" an admin's user page last month, when he knew full well that I accidentally clicked the user page tab instead of the talk page tab to place a notice. After I noticed Incnis' despicable attempt of destroying my reputation here (read the "deface" convo between he and TP above), and him writing to TP to continue the ruse, I made TP aware of what was going on. You can also read this interesting exchange between Drmies and Incnis about his nonsense claim of defacement; I think it will show you why a malicious editor like that should never, ever be allowed to vote on sanctions against anyone else. In fact, for what he did here in blatantly lying about what had happened in that situation, he should be blocked. And I don't like seeing editors ever getting blocked. But if it's clearly warranted, it needs to be done. Anyway, I'm actually glad that list of quotes was posted because it makes the best case of why these proposed sanctions are bogus. So let's see.. this comes down to me supposedly being too "dramatic" - and all its equivalents to make it sound even more sinister: wikilawyering, battleground, etc. - so let's just throw every sanction we can get away with at him... even if they don't apply to anything he did. Let's banish him from all discussions, tell him he can't be "uncivil" to anyone even though he's never been accused of being uncivil, and hey, let's just tell him he can't remove anything from his own talk page even though the only thing he did with his talk page was move (not remove) an IP template that shouldn't be there in the first place. I'm obviously not "sharing" my page with anyone; it's very clear that I'm the only one who's been using it for months. And, as TP said above, Toddst1 placing that template on my page "was misguided at best, trolling at worst". Precisely. And what no one's mentioning is that he did it immediately after he saw I made a comment to one of his fellow admins that he took offense to. The part Toddst1 doesn't tell you is that I removed that template six weeks ago and he knew all about it, because there was a big discussion at Village Pump about blanking issues, which included talks about that template. And the fact that so many admins completely ignored the fact that two editors (both registred) were edit warring on my talk page over that template, which they were fully aware of, is incredibly telling. And when I asked for help with that, it was ignored also. So I filed a report at ANEW and that was immediately declined by, remarkably, the admin who started this AN (Bbb23)! A clear case of edit warring on my talk page and its dumped by the highly involved admin who started this AN against me. And what's so sad about that is that I didn't want any sanctions against the editor(s) who edit warred on my talk page; I simply wanted an admin to educate them about the matter. Again, another classic example of IP discrimination. Had it been an IP edit warring over that template on a registred editor's page, the hammer would've come down on the IP in an instant. Btw, one of the editors who edit warred on my talk page has a mere 300 edits. I have close to 10 times that many. But they're registered and I'm an IP, so their edit warring was seen as acceptable. So this is the perspective of my accuers: No, we haven't even come close to proving he violated anything, let alone anything serious, but let's just beat the crap out of him and sanction him with as much as possible, because we know we can get away with it, because he's an IP. Sadly, most IPs who get treated like this just walk away and allow themselves to be unfairly trashed with highly exagerrated accusations with no proof to back up them up. With me, just a bunch of harmless, out-of-context quotes, that actually do more to help my case, than hurt it. But this entire matter has nothing to do with fairness. It's not even a consideration by my accusers. It's very simple: we don't like this IP and we can just impose whatever sanctions we want because... we can. Perhaps the most ludicrous part of this entire drama - yes, the drama of the discussion created by others, not me - is that I apologized immediately, and multiple times, for the tone (not points) I used in some of my comments. Sure, there are a few things I said that I would have said differently if I had to do it again. But hey, cast a stone if any of you have never said some things you regret once in awhile, or at least would have said differently. The viscious, vile, vulgar comments I've seen regularly from numerous registered editors don't even compare to the way I communicate with editors. I'm not perfect by any means, but I am an an angel compared to them. Yes, I'm sometimes more passionate than others in a discussion when I believe in something strongly, but that's no crime, and certainly not a violation that warrants any sanctions. There are also discussions where I'm one of the quiet ones in the room. Registered editors constantly get away with much, much, worse behavior than I've ever exhibited. And those who finally attract the attention of an admin who has the guts to stand up to them usually end up with a very minor sanction... a block for a day or a week, if that. Often times, just a strong warning, for behavior far worse than mine. Only the obvious, clear, extreme cases of misbehavior get the more serious punishments. So what do we have here? A bunch of generic accusations backed up by clearly insufficient proof. And a bunch of very harsh sanctions being proposed that have almost nothing to do with the behaviors being alleged. And not only have I never been blocked for anything, I don't think an admin has ever even issued a warning on my talk page for any of these alleged behaviors that all-of-a-sudden warrant months-long bans from discussions and other prohibitions for things that have never been a problem. Fortunately, any fair, neutral editor will see right through the sham going on here. It's interesting, those who've never had any involvement with me before this AN have read the entire discussion and have opposed the sanctions. Almost all of those supporting the sanctions are ones who have had little skirmishes with me, especially the four admins who led this effort and quickly created the sanctions proposal - Bbb23, Toddst1, Dennis Brown and Bwilkins - all four who I had communicated with on their talk pages just prior to this AN being started by Bbb23 - yet another important point that failed to be mentioned. Take away their four !votes (and sanctions proposal, of course) and what are we left with? A dead thread that goes nowhere. So the four extremely involved admins, who were having direct communication with me right before this AN, are the ones orchestrating this onslaught. Like a said, this is equivalent to a kangaroo court that has no credibility. That's not dramatic either because the four admins pre-determined the outcome here, the classic sign of a kangaroo court. Look above at how they completely disregarded my sincere apology very early on and very quickly proceeded to creating a proposal of harsh sanctions. That tells the story. It's almost surreal that so many of you suggest how offended you are by "drama", yet have created and perpetuated perhaps the most drama-filled ANI in a very long time. TP was a complete outsider; a highly respected admin who had zero contact with me prior to this AN and who (I assume) gets along quite well with the admins involved here. He reviewed everything that was said and presented, and told all of the supporters of the sanctions - particularly the admin leaders of this effort - "Everyone in this thread should face the sanctions except for the IP for making personal attacks without diffs." The only reason the diffs were finally presented (although they do nothing to prove the allegations or to substantiate the sanctions being proposed) is because TP made all of you see how ridiculous you were behaving and how unfair this process was. I suggest you re-read all of TP's comments, particularly the ones at 14:46, 1 July 2013, and this time do so with an open mind and the understanding that he was completely neutral coming into this. And claiming that he "doesn't understand" won't hold water because, unlike most of you, he's done a pretty vigorous review of my full history and edits, in addition to reviewing all the diffs some of you have presented (after he had to repeatedly ask for them). I would suggest you take TP's original advice: "This thread should just dissipate and the IP should be strongly recommended to register an account for his own sake to avoid headaches like this". --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This probably felt good to say, but it's probably not helpful. You might want to read my new essay at WP:ANI Advice. Ignore the picture. When posting here, you want to stick to brevity and only the facts. Can I suggest you hat your own message?--v/r - TP 17:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It probably felt as good as his false claim of apologizing - which he most definitely has never done. It also negates any such apology if it was, indeed given (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Felt good? Are you joking? And I never apologized? Really?[12][13][14][15] There are many IPs who have had their reputations trashed and simply walked away permanently from the project, but I will respond to this barrage of insults and misrepresenations. If I were registered and said and did all the same things, we wouldn't be here. Period. Hopefully, the closing admin will see through this charade and focus on the allegations vs. the evidence presented. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny. As the person most attacked by you, I note that not a single one of those links are on my talkpage, or mention my name specifically. There was no apology, and saying one exists is improper. Your reputation was created by you, not the thread above - actions speak louder than anything else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I "attacked" you? And you're the "most attacked" editor? I'm sorry, but telling you that I thought you were wrong to bring up past allegations against Orange Mike at ANI, which had absolutely nothing to do with the particular issue being discussed, was by no means an attack. And first, you claimed I "never" apologized here. But after I provided not one, but four diffs to show otherwise, you changed directions and said... 'well, they weren't on my talk page'. Wow, really? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

76, you're not helping yourself. TP has tried to explain that to you on his talk page. You even agreed: "I'm not going to say another word on any of those pages, including AN. I'm backing out." TP is sticking up for you, and I know you appreciate that, but you should take his advice more to heart. As an aside, I don't think of you an "IP". I think of you as an editor without a registered account, and I treat you no differently from anyone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not helping myself? Bbb, let's get real. And please stop with the condescending lectures as if you care about me at all. You don't. It doesn't matter one bit what I say here. You clearly proved that by starting this AN without even telling you would do that if... (whatever). You didn't say one word about AN. And you were my friend. A friend would've said... I'm going to have to go to AN if... (whatever). Instead, you went behind my back without saying a word about this possibility. And just as bad, you started developing the sanctions proposal with Toddst1 very early in this discussion, when few editors had even been given a chance to comment, and after I had issued a sincere apology. So please, give me a break and stop talking down to me. Finally, I didn't anticipate the continued onslaught of insults and misrepresentations about me. So I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I will respond when I'm being trashed. My wife didn't think I should trust you after the little spat we had in May, but I said no, he's a good guy. Sadly, she was right (as usual). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Bbb23 was being condescending, I think he was giving you legitimate advice. You were right in May, Bbb23 is a good guy. It's a shame you two arn't getting along right now, but those things can be fixed.--v/r - TP 19:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Again does 76.189.… reiterate insinuations about alleged discrimination of IPs. It is a lie IMHO, and anyway it was not his unregistered status that caused headaches like this. With this conduct he, if registered, could easily catch a block within his first 600 edits. The truth is exactly opposite: in late May and in June many people thought of 76.189.109.155 as of a new user; only few persons knew he actually edited, intermittently, since August 2012 from other IPs within a /20 range. He was positively discriminated because of it, I think, until the incident with Ymblanter. He was allowed to consume a lot of attention of experienced users, a privilege that an account with a thousand of edits can’t enjoy without detrimental consequences. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Incnis, I suggest you stay out of this discussion. You have been proven to be a complete liar (not an insult, just a fact) with the deceptive game you played yesterday with TP in this discussion about my alleged "defacing" of someone's user page. This thread you started at TP's page tells the story. And although TP was the one who called you a "Wiki-dick" in that discussion, I'll concur with the sentiments. Any editor who would blatantly and maliciously attempt to destroy someone the way you did should not only not be allowed to participate in discussions like this, but shouldn't even be editing. At least editors like Andy don't tell flat-out lies; they just are rude and insulting. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Cute. I understand now why TParis called it a baiting, but I said what I actually think without an intention to inflame the person in question. What I think although, of course, I can mistake in some aspects. BTW I’d wonder if 76.189.109.155 will not get his first block soon for this blatant violation of WP:NPA. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Check your facts. TP said that Andy was baitng, and that I was taking the bait. (Sort of like what's happening now - you're baiting me and I'm stupidly taking it.) Do you ever tell the truth? Look Incnis, you have no credibility here and TP's comment to you was right on the money. And for the record, I didn't call you a "Wiki-dick", TP did. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

76.189, you should probably take a break for the day. Really, you need to make more of an effort not to see these folks as "opponents." If you register an account and agree to be mentored, I'll help guide you on this approach. Incnis, I'm going to assume the reason you didn't hit me with an ANI report yesterday was because I could have or I didn't report you also for your own civility issues in this thread. Let me suggest that before you write one such report on the IP, you review how your own civility contributes to the behaviors of others. Please settle down your calls for blocks or I'm going to encourage whomever blocks the IP to be fair.--v/r - TP 19:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For the day? And allow myself to continue getting trashed or condescended to by those who are strongly advocating for me to be harshly sanctioned? If I wanted a mentor, you would be a great choice. You've clearly proven to be an even-handed admin. You have no problem defending me or slapping me down when you think it's appropriate. Get this discussion closed and I'll stop editing for good as soon as that happens. So let's see who really wants drama. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion had pretty much ended until you responded this morning and as we can see, Incnis has no shame in continuing. He is been pretty successful at projecting the bad image onto you. I think it's time we all just let this thread die, if we're lucky, or be closed and that might take you and I backing off first. We've said our bit, we know what is true, and it's not necessary for us to have the last word. I think for my part, I've said all that can be said.--v/r - TP 19:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

TP did not appreciate my closure of this thread. I understand that and agree with him that this thread should be closed.

Would someone uninvolved, please evaluate the community's responses to #Proposal 2 above and close this thread please? Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No, TP did not say it should be closed. What he actually said was that it was very inappropriate for you to close it,[16][17] not that it should be closed. And he said two things about what he wants to happen to this thread: (1) "This thread should just dissipate" and (2) "I think it's time we all just let this thread die, if we're lucky". Btw, I'm sure TP could reply himself, but I see that he's decided to take a wikibreak because of all the nonsense here at AN, along with some other great admins who are fed up.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you thought it was appropriate to close this discussion yourself[18][19] and declare consensus for the sanctions even though you (1) authored the sanctions, (2) !voted on the sanctions, and (3) posted six comments in the discussion. Or thought it was acceptable to disregard policy and post the notification. I can't help but consider the one part TP said to you about your actions; about how it's "hard to assume good faith when you pull a stunt like that"

One must wonder why you're in such a hurry to have this closed, as indicated by this edit summary and comment of yours. It's your choice to waste your time monitoring this discussion all the time. And of course don't forget, you are the one who authored the severe proposal that precipitated and inflamed this endless debate. Had you come up with a plan that addressed the issues in a fair and tempered manner, we could've been done with this drama in a matter of hours. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me reprhase: TP requested the thread die. I requested the Community response to Proposal 2 be evaluated and the thread closed. There is an active proposal that has received community input and procedurally must either be accepted or rejected. I reiterate my request for an univolved closure. Toddst1 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Toddst1, the author of the sanctions, is once again pleading for closure. Sadly, he continues to appear so anxious to see this thread closed that he's not only resorted to changing this subsection heading, but he also attempted to shout the request.[20][21] The long-standing original heading has been restored so as not to break the link for editors, and the message has been unbolded per talk page/shouting guidelines. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't commented in this discussion previously. My own feeling is amazement that anyone has managed to be so provocative as to exceed Dennis's patience. I think it's obvious that the topic ban listed as proposal 2 is needed. I consider this as something of a last chance. I urge someone to close accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"so provocative as to exceed Dennis's patience"... and I'm the one being accused of drama? That's just more rhetoric. You of course provided no diffs to substantiate or give any clarity to that very vague point. I understand you want to support your admin colleagues, but since when do we ban users for allegedly 'exceeding the patience' of a particular user, whatever that means? Should we ban every user that exceeds another editor's patience? If so, we'd be banning hundreds more users a day, at least. It's also interesting that you call this a "last chance" considering thet fact I've never been blocked, no one ever had a discussion with me prior to coming here (or even warned that it could be taken here), and I don't think any admin has ever even posted a warning on my talk page regarding any of these alleged behaviors.

And what actually brought us here? Well, Toddst1 re-added an IP template to my talk page minutes after I posted a comment on one of his admin friends' talk page, which offended him. And he readded the template even though he knew it had been removed six weeks earlier, without objection from anyone (including himself), after a big debate at Village Pump among dozens of editors. And then when I asked to discuss the matter with him on his talk page after he re-added it last week, he not only ignored the request, but actually removed my comments from his talk page. I looked up the guidelines regarding that template and found nothing that said it is required to be at the top of the page. So I moved it down lower on the page.

Bbb23 reverted me and says "these templates go on the top", even though there's nothing that says that. I told Bbb that I would be fine leaving the template - even though it's quite obvious that I'm not sharing my account with anyone - but politely asked if we could just move it down the page since there are absolutely no rules that say it has to be at the top. I even said that if he can just show me a rule of some type that says it must be at the top, I would gladly accept that and move on. Instead of working with me, or saying 'well, let's discuss it with Todd', Bbb gives a firm no. So, even though the template was still on on my talk page - just not exactly where Bbb wanted it located - Bbb takes me to AN without ever mentioning that he was even thinking about doing that. When another admin, TP, became aware of the IP template being re-added to my talk page, he described that action (above) as "misguided at best, trolling at worst". So this silly template issue is precisely what triggered Bbb to start this drama. But instead of just saying that in his opening comments here, he presented this entire matter as a wide-ranging assault on my entire history of editing, even though he and I never discussed those matters. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@DGG, now you've made Dennis at least in part a point of argument in this AN (by introducing "Dennis's patience" as yardstick for implementing sanction) -- good one! That argument doesn't pass critical thinking. It's manipulative and I think stupid also. Dennis has just as many faults as many others behind keyboards here -- perhaps even more since he's demonstrated to my satisfaction he has blind spot to his own inconsistencies, shortcomings, and biases. So when you editors lavish praise on him again and again ("Saint Dennis"), you're really enablers to an ill-advised situation where Dennnis tends to believe these things and gets an even more swollen head. And that isn't good. (Besides, Dennis does not need your praise, he's demonstrated time & time again he's perfectly capable of preaching his own "goodness" to the community at practically every opportunity he has found. And quite frankly I am suspicious of any editor who lavishes said praise, believing they likely have their *own* agenda for doing so. [For understanding that, I recommend People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

God bless both Dennis and DGG for always having a cool head and a sound sense of reason in the face of an on-going storm of antipathy for admins which generally appears to stem from the same people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My reply to DGG was about the quality of an argument based on "Dennis's patience". If DGG is a Black person do you conclude my comment makes me a racist? If DGG is a female do you conclude my comment makes me a misogynist? Do you have any additional sparkling ad hominems for the closer to review, Kudpung? And how many times have you used the phrases "antipathy for admins" and "anti-admin brigade" on the Wikipedia in the last week? Perhaps you need a long look in the mirror. (Do you contribute discussion, or push division on the Wikipedia, Kudpung?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've used them in fact many more times than you have perhaps even noticed, and always within context. It almost sounds as if you are feeling personally addressed. Aside from your comments on other admins, to understanding that, I'll remind you again that WP:POLEMIC certainly addresses a form of inciting division amongst editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not about DGG or Dennis. So why make comments about them here? Your comments are off-topic to this thread, Kudpung. And your warning and accuse against me is equally off topic. You are an Admin. But you are using this ANI thread as off-topic WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Why don't you give it a rest, Kudpung Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no trouble parsing what DGG said, and the above responses to DGG's comment are wildly off the mark (and off-topic here, and likely to encourage further bad behavior from the IP under discussion since you are using this thread to oppose someone who opposed the IP). Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a discussion on arguments for or against sanction. According to you I'm supposed to preface a comment I have on the quality of an argument given, with thoughts how said comment might or might not impact the future behavior of a complicated organism that is a human being. That's pretty messed up, and quite a reach. It isn't my role to "play psycholgist" here, and neither should I try to do that, since I'm not qualified (and I bet neither are you). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moderator wanted

At Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Lis_alibi_pendens_or_muddle_on.3F a clear consensus seeks a moderator using stipulated rules in that discussion to proceed on the article while the ArbCom process proceeds apace. Which means we have over a month to actually continue on a course to resolve the issues rather than focus on behaviours. The primary criteria here are that the moderator ensure that WP:CONSENSUS be followed, and be willing to say "Enough!" when it looks like there is any incivility or perceived delay for the sake of delay. Perfection is neither sought nor expected, just a willingness to get this thing finally done and likely protected. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be wiling to take up this position as an uninvolved editor. But before I'd say yes, perhaps a clearer outline of what the moderator is expected do would be helpful.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

All the editors save one agreed there to very strict rules governing the moderation. When that one editor basically declined to accept the proposed rules, finding fault with all of them, I rather think the entire project died. If you wish to try dealing with some exceedingly tendentious personae, then try, but I have now taken up Pilate's bowl of water. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the rules or explain them to me?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 23:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The agreed on rules (prior to one objection to all of them)

1. Absolutely no mention of another editor by name in any critical context, period, including the implicit use of "you" to make critical comments about an editor in any post. (basically a "civility rule).
2. No "consensus" shall be claimed without a plurality of four !votes for any proposal.
3. "Drive-by" !votes are to be discouraged. (ones with no constructive discussion to be weighed minimally - but not discouraging constructive suggestions from added editors)
4. Any non-involved admin shall interpret these rules and be allowed to enforce them as though they had been posited in arbitration through AE.
5. If and only if this option is selected, we shall then decide on procedural matters including the questions of whether we deal with existing sections or deal with a general overview of the topic, etc.

An objection or clarification to one might be reasonable, but objecting to the entire group which was acceptable to everyone else seemed a tad more than I wish to deal with. I have dealt with editors with strong positions in the past (including on Judaism, Lyndon LaRouche and Prem Rawat among others) but this now takes the cake. All five layers of the cake. Collect (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I know the rules, now what am I moderating? That talk page?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 23:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Which editor has objected to all of the rules? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(to cyberpower). Yes, that talk page. I don't necessarily agree that the previous moderator's "hatting" of all but one discussion was a good idea, but I see it as acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(to Xenophrenic). You objected to 4 of the 5 proposed moderation rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(to Arthur). Incorrect. My only, single, objection was to having WP:CONSENSUS redefined as being determined by obtaining an arbitrary number of votes. One objection, Arthur; not something that would require an abacus. ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A theoretical advantage of this moderated page over the talk page being subject to "general sanctions" is that we've specifically agreed to follow the rules; and those who break the rules or do not agree to follow them can be banned from the page by the moderator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting task.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually a daunting one unless the editors there actually heed the stipulated rules. Collect (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't let Collect scare you (or any other volunteer) off, it's not that daunting. You set the ground-rules, participants agree to abide, and if there are any transgressions you simply ban them or drop them from the moderated discussions and move forward, as the previous moderator did. What is more likely to challenge you is your role as "the decider" when discussions reach an impasse with valid points and disagreements on both sides. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Violating the very first postulated rule - congrats! I am amazed it was this fast. Cheers - now I better stop before I say something entirely too candid about your modus operandi. Collect (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I can't violate #1 until (Option 1) is in effect, and apparently it isn't until we get a volunteer moderator. Cyberpower has shown interest, but do we have a commitment yet? Until then, you'll just have to wait to ... how was it phrased ... "spin up minor issues to try to get people smacked". Where everybody knows your name, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Final question. How is consensus determined by 4 votes? I'll agree to enforce it but I always thought consensus meant strength of the arguments was key.

(1) The "postulated rule", even if it comes into effect, will apply specifically to the TP moderated discussion, not to AN. So the accusation that Xenophrenic's observations are "violating" a "rule" here is wholly false and misleading, and should be struck. "Now I better stop before I say something entirely too candid about . . . modus operandi." (2) I don't know who posted the unsigned comments above about enforcing a 4-vote majority "consensus", but they're right. That's not consensus. But it's a great way to legitimize tag-teaming. Writegeist (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to be the moderator of this page. Although, I feel that consensus rule should be clarified some more. Collect, would you mind starting a discussion about that on the page?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic has vetoed any semblance of solid rules, so I shall not participate. He has quite successfully chased me off from that topic, and the horrid mélange now found on that page should be dealt with by you as quickly as possible, and you should establish what precisely the structure of discussion should be rather than the amebic shaped current "system". IOW, take firm rein. I would suggest you start with a simple consensus determining whether the article is about the general movement, or about all the subsets of the movement, and how much weight to ascribe thereto. Cheers, and (uploading a case of fine wine to get you through all this). Collect (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic only vetoed Collect's attempt to redefine determination of WP:Consensus to include arbitrary numeric !vote counting (and I even offered a simple alternative solution to address the same issue). If my objection to !vote counting so vexes Collect that he can't bring himself to participate in those consensus discussions, then there isn't much else for me to say on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, no. There has been no attempt to redefine consensus under Wikipedia rules. What we've done here is set a higher standard for claiming consensus. There can be no claim of consensus without a minimum of four "votes." The distinction is subtle but quite clear, and very important. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, no. The attempt was to redefine determination of consensus by saying it can't be claimed unless a team of four says so first. I can see how being able to wield such a roadblock to achieving consensus might be considered important to some. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Team of four"? Nope - and that is a blatant and deliberate misreading of what is, for example, current practice at ArbCom for accepting cases. That you find it a "roadblock" is fine - WP:DEADLINE seems to apply as does WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Requiring that a minimum number of Arbiters, from an effectively fixed pool of disparate arbiters, commit to hearing a case before proceeding - that serves a legitimate purpose. Introducing an arbitrary numeric (4? Really?) !vote counting requirement to the determination of consensus, rather than rely on the merit of reasoned discussion, appears to serve a different purpose. I say that after having observed the group dynamics at recent consensus discussions at that article. I guess I just have a general aversion to emphasizing numeric superiority over policy, reason and common sense. While your proposal may have been an attempt at addressing a problem (premature declaration of consensus), it also introduces additional opportunity for obstruction, and further reinforces the unfortunate misperception held by some that "votes = consensus". Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done User:C678 (cyberpower) has accepted the role of discussion Moderator. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

RM backlogged, again

It appears that WP:RMCD is once again backlogged, with more than 50 discussions having gone on for more than 7 days. In addition, there are another 20 or so that have been open for 7 days and will move to the backlog in eight hours. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never done one of these before. I've looked at the instructions on how to do it, and they left me just a bit dizzy. If I try one, would some admin be willing to review what I did and make sure I didn't screw it up? The only way I'll ever be able to help out here is if I get some practice doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've non-admin closed a few. It's not particularly difficult but agree that WP:RMCI is incredibly verbose. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I picked one I thought would be relatively easy: Paul Chapman (footballer) (new name). I think I did everything the instructions said, but I didn't fix any double redirects. The instructions were somewhat weird on that score because on the one hand, it seemed to say "do it", and on the other hand it (and other things I looked at) said bots would do it and don't waste your time. There were a fair number, so I elected to leave them alone. I was also suprised when I deleted the old redirect (new name) to prepare for the move, that there was no option in the drop-down on the delete form, so I just wrote what I was doing in the box.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed Template:Geelong Cats current squad and about half a dozen other templates, which account for most of the redirects. The bot will fix any double redirects, but it takes less time to fix them yourself, so it is simply an issue of time management, fix them or go on to something else more pressing. Normally the editors who wanted the article moved will help with cleanup after it is moved. Here is a plot of the rise and fall and rise again of the backlog:

On one day we essentially had one admin clear out the entire backlog, including moving 25 articles, but they did relist 22. RM's can actually be closed at any time that consensus is reached, but waiting a week is standard if there is any reasonable possibility that new information will be presented. It would be very nice, though, to close or relist all during the last day before they reach the backlog, so that there is never any backlog. Just check the time at the bottom of the page and compare it to the timestamp for when the request was made or when it was last relisted. Apteva (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I did look at the backlog but closing RMs looks like a right faff and without closing scripts to automagic the tags its too much effort to dip in for a few minutes and help out. Can anyone suggest any ways of making the mechanics of closing the things easier? Without them I suspect your backlogs will continue and with them you may find they are cleared much quicker! Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Doing requested moves is not as hard as WP:RMCI might suggest. It's really just adding {{RM top|Moved, with optional rationale}} at the top and {{RM bottom}} at the end of the discussion. Remove the line which says {{requested move/dated|...}}. When doing the actual move, be sure the thing you are moving over has no significant history. The move will automatically delete the target if you check a box in the move dialog. When filling the edit summary say 'Per move discussion.' The other points in the move-closing instructions can be done by any editor, not just admins. Moves are not as horrible as closing AfDs without a script. The list of move requests at WP:RM is automatically updated so closing the discussion (and executing the move) are all that's needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

When you don't do it regularly its enough of a barrier that I would struggle to be bothered to go through RMCI every time to get the tags right. If I can have a script for closing xfds why can't we do one for RM?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Try asking a well known now blocked script writer for a script. I would not have any use for a script, since the three steps for a nac are simple enough. No one is stopping anyone from writing a script though. Apteva (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not to beat a dead horse, but there are now 63 backlogged discussions. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Despite being mesmerized by the charts above, I did my second one. I even fixed all the double redirects this time.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD topic ban proposed for Banhtrung1

I believe that Banhtrung1 (talk · contribs) lacks the competence to nominate templates at TFD, and therefore I propose that they are topic banned from nominating templates at TFD indefinitely. Reasons for concern:

• Bundling templates 9 days after the discussion has already begun and after nearly a dozen editors have commented - this despite a previous warning for this.
• Over-bundling of templates despite previous advice not to, see here, here, here.
• Said advice was also provided here, where Banhtrung1 was advised to split up their nomination into a few smaller ones. That was completely ignored and pretty much the same templates were taken back to TFD in another mass nomination just a few days later.
• Banhtrung1 was blocked by myself at the end of June 2013 for repeated malformed TFD nominations, yet they continue to edit in this manner which is becoming increasingly disruptive. I therefore feel a topic ban from TFD nomination is warranted - other partticipation such as commenting and !voting should be allowed. GiantSnowman 11:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Would a ban from 'bundling' nominations rather than nominating outright not work? Is there a problem with the nominations themselves? Or is it just the method he is going about it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Partly that he is nominating/bundling too many templates (against advice), partly that he is nominating/bundling dis-similar templates (against advice), partly that he is adding templates many days after the discussion has already begun (against advice). GiantSnowman 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Gnoming users who don't learn from mistakes should be given little leniency. In the end, they do far more harm than good. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I have taken this editor to SPI. GiantSnowman 11:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Never uses an edit summary to let watchers know that he nominated for TfD, never sends a message to the creator that he nominated for TfD, keeps adding new templates to the discussion after people has voted, or adding templates to the discussion that wasn't tagged for TfD, and votes several times in his own discussion (checks also this IP). I'm tired of babysitting, and if he gets a topic ban I might contribute to Wikipedia instead of cleaning up his TfD-nominations every second day. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Bahntrung1 has a very troubled history. Very young, and not a native English speaker. Possibly does not understand what he's doing wrong and he might not even know what this ANI is all about, if indeed he reacts to it. The 'it was my sister' most likely wasn't, and if it was it's meatpuppetry. To cut him some slack first, I would go along with the topic ban, without prejudice to him eventually getting blocked again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Under the proposed ban the editor will still be allowed to vote on TfD nominations, he just won't be able to nominate things himself. The SPI case was enough to justify a block, so I think Banhtrung1 is on thin ice. The topic ban is a reasonable step. The editor's talk page suggests a lack of awareness of our policies and little improvement over time. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I will just qualify my 'support' !vote above for the ban to encompas the nomination of any templates, not just from bundling them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, apologies if I wasn't clear in my proposal - this is a topic ban from nominating any templates for deletion at all. GiantSnowman 16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems like there are already a consensus to close this, and I believe it should be done as soon as possible as his nominations becomes more and more disruptive. Like removing a nomination from one day where someone has voted to keep (myself), and adding the same templates to another nomination on another day. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Block of IP

I have blocked 151.227.72.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one month. They have made a number of poor edits and have recently been blocked for a shorter period. Am posting here as I am blocking them for edits that occurred on a page I have edited previously. Others are free to change this block as they see fit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block. A singularly subtle form of vandalism, all very similar from one IP, that could often go unnoticed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Result of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem

After thoroughly reading this RfC and the arguments expressed for and against each draft, we have found a consensus for Draft 7 and have decided that it is within our mandate to insert the geographical information from Draft 14 in place of the ellipses of Draft 7. There was a consensus that it is not compliant with NPOV policy to state in the article “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel”, nor is it compliant to state “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such”. There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine.

We have decided to act under the broad mandate given us by the Arbitration Committee to set the first paragraph of the article in stone to best ameliorate the conflict, rather than instigate further conflict and edit-warring over what should replace the ellipses. Therefore, we have set the first paragraph of Jerusalem as follows:

’’’Jerusalem’’’, located on a plateau in the Judean

Mountains between the Mediterranean and Dead seas, is one of the oldest cities in the world. It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely

recognized internationally.

To reiterate, this decision is binding for 3 years and no one may add information about Jerusalem’s capital status or location in either Israel or Palestine to the lead.

Thank you for your participation.

Respectfully,

Keilana (talk), Pgallert (talk), and RegentsPark (talk)

What's with the numerous line breaks? How does 3RR play into this? Will editors be permitted to go past 3RR when restoring the lead, similar to what's permitted for enforcing the result of the Gdansk Vote? Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Line breaks are my fault, we drafted this offline and I was too lazy to remove them. As I understand it, 3RR can be broken to maintain this new status quo, but I do not work in Arbitration Enforcement at all, so I may be wrong, that's not my usual bailiwick. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Re 3RR: don't edit war, and particularly do not do it on a WP:ARBPIA article! There should be a prepared statement (possibly a template given that it will be needed for three years) which can be put on the talk page of any user who edits in conflict with the finding, and who does a similar edit after being reverted. After that, it's a bit more explanation on the user's talk, then it's WP:AE. Only one revert is needed for that—let AE handle a persistent user or users. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm talking about the following situation: someone comes along and changes it to say "Jerusalem is the capital of __". You revert it per this consensus. Someone else (clearly not a sock/meat puppet) comes along and does the same, and you revert it per this consensus. Repeat several times before an admin comes along and protects it. Nobody's done even 1RR except you, and you're the one enforcing the consensus. Should you be blocked? I say "definitely not". After all, if you reverted a pile of people who were editing Gdańsk to change all appearances of "Gdańsk" to "Danzig", you would be protected from a 3RR block by the Gdansk Vote; why shouldn't you be protected here? Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• My personal and non-admin opinion is that edit warring on an ARBPIA article would need crystal-clear justification to avoid being blocked (that is, a statement from Arbcom that you could link in your edit summary that edit warring over the issue is ok—LOL). Lots of people would notice an uninformed editor (or passing troll) changing Jerusalem against the ruling, so there is no reason for one editor to do more than one revert. It is possible that some edits would clearly breach the ruling and so in principle could be reverted ten times, but there would always be wriggle room for someone to claim that their text was not a breach of the ruling. At any rate, suppose you did revert someone ten times—would that really be desirable? Better to raise the matter at AE where it would quickly be dealt with. However, a standard notice to drop on an editor talk page would be highly desirable (although a templated notice possibly will not work from December due to WP:FLOW). Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• If an editor restored the exact text and pointed at the Arbcom decision when he did so, I would certainly be loathe to block him for edit-warring. It's not listed as an exemption at WP:3RR, but I suspect that's an oversight, not intentional.—Kww(talk) 06:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, however there are admins who are not as careful and who may (incorrectly) follow the principle of blocking everyone who has been edit warring. Later, that admin would be told what a blunder they had made, and the block would be overturned, but the editor would have a block permanently attached to their name. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, perhaps I misunderstood what was decided. Are people allowed to make modifications to the lead paragraph, as long as they don't "add information about Jerusalem’s capital status or location in either Israel or Palestine to the lead"? I took the closing statement to mean both that capital status and location couldn't be changed AND that the decision to set the lead as such couldn't be changed, period, until three years have passed — and that includes no changes such as "claim is widely recognized internationally" becoming "claim has received widespread international recognition", or anything else with the same meaning but different words. No wiggle room there whatsoever, so your responses make me wonder if I misinterpreted the closing statement. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the community free to restrict an admin's use of some but not all admin tools?

1. Is the community free to restrict an admin's use of some but not all admin tools?
2. If so, how? May this be done using the same process by which we typically decide user restrictions such as topic-bans, interaction bans, etc. (mostly by discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI, sometimes accompanied by an RFC) or does the community need to establish a new process for this, or must constraining an admin's use of specific admin tools be left to ArbCom?

Some arbitrators have partially addressed these questions, but I'd like to hear views from others, and perhaps more from the below-quoted arbs too, if they wish.

Here Newyorkbrad says, "The Arbitration Committee has the authority, for good cause, to desysop an administrator. I can imagine circumstances in which an administrator has displayed poor judgment in one area, e.g. blocking, but is doing a good job elsewhere, such that I would prefer to restrict his or her use of blocking rather than to desysop outright. The fact that I don't recall a case where this was done suggests this is not a common scenario, but I don't see any reason to say a priori that it's not a remedy that could be voted where warranted."

Here Salvio Giuliano says, "...the community can restrict and sanction editors; it cannot, however, desysop administrators. This is an exception to the rule and, therefore, should be strictly construed. For that, in my opinion, the community may ban a sysop from using part of his toolset, provided this is not a way to surreptitiously desysop him – which means that a ban from using the "undelete" button is OK, but a ban from (un)deleting, (un)blocking and (un)protecting would not be acceptable. As it happens, it's something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis."

Here Risker says, " I suggest that the community consider two courses of action: whether to initiate a discussion specifically about [an admin] being restricted from editing any protected templates or starting a request for arbitration/desysop at the appropriate page."

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion (and have said this long before I joined ArbCom) that the "community" (more accurately, a set of people who show up at ANI) does not have the authority to restrict the use of administrator tools involuntarily. NW (Talk) 14:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

On what is that based? What policy or WMF directive says that our freedom to restrain the behaviour of users extends only to editors; that admin behaviour may not be constrained by the community using the same processes that are adequate to block and ban editors? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I should say that this is my impression of current unwritten policy. We've been a project with administrators for 11-12 years now, and in that time, I do not think we have allowed an RFA to pass with restrictions, nor has any proposal to restrict an administrator from using their admin tools ever formally passed. That says something to me, that for better or for worse we have chosen to view the sysop toolset as one set that cannot be splintered apart by individual decisions of whichever dramaboarders happen to show up. You'll notice that even individual editors are very rarely sanctioned on enwiki because of ANI discussions, or if it is, it's almost always an editor who has previously been blocked or banned. Any action taken is often actually one administrator going ahead and then the noticeboards review the matter, not that the noticeboard comes to a conclusion and an admin implements it. This isn't the greatest argument in the world, I know. But I see some merit in the current system, as it allows an admin to take action that may or may not be unanimously supported without worrying about being pilloried (even worse than they already can be) by the editors who really hate him or her showing up (the same reason why standard admin recall procedures don't work that well). NW (Talk) 15:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the subsection below, then? ;-) I mean, just because we haven't done something before doesn't mean we can't. Or is it mandated by the WMF or the five pillars or somewhere else in policy that we must do things the way we always have. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we?

No, I don't think so - if they cannot be trusted with one tool then they should not be trusted with any. That's not to say an admin doing X should be immediately de-sysopped, but they should be trained and put through probation or something until they are back to scratch, and if still no good then we need to consider full de-sysopping. GiantSnowman 13:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked "May we?" So I've created a subsection for your answer to the question, "Should we?"

The present RfA process is incapable of thoroughly assessing in advance a candidate's competency in all domains of tool use, so it is inevitable that a number (most?) will turn out to be excellent and valuable in many areas of tool use, but less competent in others. Why should the community have to desysop an admin who's performing fine in most areas, just because they're having problems in one area? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a vital difference between:

an admin not being very good at X, recognising that fact, and so choosing to not use any tools in that particular area.

and

an admin not being very good at X, not recognising that fact, and consequently mis-using/abusing the tools.

Which one of these scenarios is your hypothetical situation talking about? GiantSnowman 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just the latter. Jimbo acknowledged his blocking of Bishonen was inappropriate and offered to put the block button aside for a year, and Hex agreed to do the same after the community made it clear he needed to rethink his use of the block button; but in cases where an admin doesn't recognise a problem, we may choose between restricting their use and a full desysop. See Risker pointing out those two options in the above quote. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly said, in general, I believe that when a plurality of remedies are all suitable to stop the disruption an editor is causing, only the least onerous one should be imposed, which means that when an admin is acting inappropriately only in a particular area or with a particular tool, there is nothing preventing the community from restricting him. I understand the objection that an admin who's not trusted to do x should not be trusted to be an admin tout court, but I disagree (the best solution would be to unbundle the sysop toolset, but, unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon): we have "technical" admins who do great things and are sorely needed and we also have admins who are great at doing repetitive tasks but who lack the people's skills required to deal with a person who is being troublesome but is neither a vandal nor another kind of malicious editor – and I don't see any reason why we should deprive ourselves of the good these admins can do to the encyclopaedia... Regarding the procedure to actually impose a sanction, I'd say that the current one governing sanctions on editors is adequate and see no reason to create a new process... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The community does have this power. I think it should be one of those things that a bureaucrat is required to judge consensus on, much like an RFA. The problem I have with this request is being aware of the context: Anthonyhcole has repeatedly indicated that he wants to restrict the blocking capability of a group of admins whose blocks he feels are disrespectful or insensitive to the plight of the "content creators", and I've been specifically identified as one of the admins he wishes to apply this new-found power to. I know Coren, Sandstein, and Fram are also on his hit-list. It would seem that the basic intent is a backdoor method of making admins afraid to make unpopular, but necessary, blocks. This makes me extremely leery of just having the discussions take place on ANI and having any admin that feels like he has found a rough consensus imposing the sanctions.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Kww, I understand your concern. I hereby undertake never to initiate or support an attempt to restrict your Coren's, Sandstein's or Fram's use of specific admin tools. This isn't about you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat closing seems reasonable to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my motives: I believe that if the community begins taking responsibility for guiding and modifying the behaviour of our admins in this way, to some degree the ugliness of RfA and the palpable fracture between the "admin corps" and "editors" will be ameliorated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually believe that particular "palpable fracture" exists. We have a small but vocal group that believes that good content contributions should forgive all sins, and there is a fracture between them and the rest of the community.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you don't see it, but there is a problem with the relationship between the editing and policing communities. If, as you say, a small group is complaining loudly about your (collective) behaviour - that's a problem, and community imposed behaviour modification on those admins who are a problem (but don't recognise it) will help. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Because, of course, all the editors involved are blameless ... —Kww(talk) 17:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Of course not. That's why we need you. But you're not all blameless, either. And when an admin has a problem in one narrow area, we need more nuanced options than just de-sysop or do nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not? We can siteban people and topic ban them, and that could include a community decision of "you will be subjected to an indefinite block if you don't stop using tool X". Admins are people too, and that means that they should be subject to the same standards as other people. Not sure that it's a good idea in this case, but saying "no we can't do that" is going too far. 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whether "the community has this power". As it has never been exercised, I do not think it should be assumed that it has. To inaugurate it would require at least consensus at a CENT-advertised RFC, and a clear definition of what would be needed - e.g., discussion to remain open for a set minimum time, bureaucrat required to close. I would be against it, for two reasons:

• Theoretical: this is the case of "an admin not being very good at X, not recognising that fact, and consequently mis-using/abusing the tools." If, after the sort of discussion envisaged, the admin still will not accept that there is a problem, that to me would cast enough doubt on his judgement to make me unwilling to leave him with the other tools.
• Practical: the existing problem described in WP:Unblockable would become worse if any block of a popular user brought all his friends to ANI demanding a vote on whether the blocking admin should be deprived of the block button.

It is all very well Anthonyhcole promising that he will not use this against Fram Kww and the other three; others would not be bound by that promise, and a campaign to chip away at the limited number of admins willing to make difficult but necessary blocks would not be good for the project. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Salvio addressed your first point, above. Regarding your assumption that a mob of buddies that disapproves of one block will be able to deprive an admin of the block button, that strikes me as suspect. What I can foresee is a large number of editors getting sufficiently fed-up with a cowboy who too often blocks when equally or more effective but less-draconian options are available, and telling him/her to do something else for a while.

(For the record, I'm reassessing Fram in light of his recent good calls regarding Eric and Kiefer.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrators are treated differently from other users in one respect: we do not have a community desysop process. Repeated attempts to introduce one have failed, with two common reasons being that it could be easily abused by those with grudges and that it would deter admins from performing potentially controversial admin actions. Both problems would also apply to a process for restricting an admin's use of a particular tool. I wouldn't have a problem if ArbCom (which does have the authority to desysop) were to issue a remedy preventing an admin from using the block button. Hut 8.5 18:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is the crux of the question. We do not have a community desysop process (but should have) and if we did have one, it should be something along the lines of an "inverse RfA", and not based on an AN/I model. Until we have such a process, and as long as the powers wielded by an admin remain bundled, the community cannot, it seems to me, effectively unbundle them by forbidding use of specific powers. Perhaps it should be able to, but I don't believe it now has that capability. The community can, of course, use moral suasion to convince an admin to lay aside use of one of those powers for a time (per the examples above), but it cannot force an admin not to have that power. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We cannot take the power from them - only the WMF via ArbCom has that gift - but we can force an admin not to use a power, or enforce restricted use. For instance, if an admin is habitually having their decorum-enforcement blocks overturned by the community, we could allow that admin to block only obvious vandals and confirmed socks. We can do whatever we believe is best for our mission - unless it's proscribed by the WMF. If you can explain why I'm wrong on that point, please do so in the first section of this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to "force" someone to do something unless you have the means to back up the order. The community does not have that means in regards to admins, therefore any attempt to "force" an admin not to use one of their abilities is doomed to failure, and is ultimately an exercise in drama, not in regulating the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If persuasion fails to stop an admin from misusing a tool, we can make them stop by threatening to block them or actually blocking them, just as we make editors respect a restriction with the threat of a block. Kww did it briefly a day or two ago. The question is, should we do that outside a perceived emergency? Should we impose longer restrictions for a perceived intractable problem via a community discussion and/or RfC, without review or endorsement by ArbCom? I've come round to the view that ArbCom review is necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard this assertion before from admins. In fact, it won't be known for sure if those with grudges will be able to abuse this process until we start using the process. Personally, I think it's highly unlikely. I think a well-moderated AN or ANI discussion is a pretty sound process, and as with any user behaviour discussion, we'll be looking for a pattern of behaviour, not just one or two reasonable errors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please point me towards this mythical "well-moderated AN or ANI discussion" ;) NW (Talk) 19:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. A discussion on one of these noticeboards surrounding a controversial admin action tends to devolve into a mess. You don't think this proposal will be used by those with grudges? This proposal itself was inspired by a grudge surrounding a block discussed further up this page. People sympathetic to that editor want to be able to punish the admin concerned. Giving them the power to do so isn't going to improve that situation. Sure, we won't know for sure if the procedure will be used in that way unless we enable it, but that's like saying you don't know for sure if shooting yourself in the foot will hurt unless you try it. Hut 8.5 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, I should have said "well-behaved". AN discussions are a far more civilised affair than they were just a year ago; and they can be even more controlled and focussed if you, the habitues, decided to exercise more self-control, as you did twelve months ago. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hut 8.5, AN/ANI discussions sometimes become a mess, but most often they just fizzle into a frustrated deadlock - for good reason: we're not willing to deprive ourselves of an otherwise good admin due to a shortcoming in one limited area. By the way, I don't see this step being taken very often. But we can do it, so we should when it's more appropriate than doing nothing or de-sysopping. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason ANI discussions frequently end up that way is because they are essentially unmoderated interactions between large numbers of editors with strongly held opposing views. In the case of the unblockables problem mentioned above the problem is that such editors have a number of sympathisers who are prepared to agitate or make excuses on their behalf. I don't anticipate that the number of admins subject to such restrictions will be very large either, but that doesn't really help the situation, because the mere threat of such a sanction will be enough to deter admins from performing controversial admin actions, and because the number of proposed restrictions will be much larger than the number of enacted restrictions (controversial admin actions will have supporters as well as opponents). Hut 8.5 10:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this below where I suggest the admin may appeal to ArbCom, who may lift or impose whatever restrictions they deem appropriate. Regarding "This proposal itself was inspired by a grudge surrounding a block discussed further up this page," I don't know what you're referring to there. I've been thinking out loud about this at WT:BLOCK, WT:AC/N and elsewhere with Kww, Newyorkbrad and others for six months. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Making people take these cases to ArbCom in the first place will largely prevent grudge actions, allowing an appeal to ArbCom afterwards won't. (Note this argument hasn't worked for community desysop proposals.) Regarding the other issue, you've evidently forgotten this thread from earlier this week, where you started talking about this proposal in a discussion about that very block. The reason this proposal is getting such attention now is because of that block. Hut 8.5 06:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't know what you're talking about. Are you saying I'm bearing a grudge that motivates this proposal? If that's what you mean, I'd prefer that you strike the claim. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying. Please clarify. I was prompted to start this thread by a comment from Risker, quoted at the top of this thread, which has nothing to do with Eric's block or grudges. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you personally are motivated by a grudge. I am saying that this idea is attracting interest at the moment because of the block of Eric, and I am confidently predicting that people with grudges surrounding Eric would try to use this process to further them. Hut 8.5 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• If the community were not allowed to sanction an admin in any way, including a topic ban (via using the tools or not using the tools) then we will have successfully created "supereditors" that are above policy. I find this offensive. While I don't expect sanctions to be common, to say that there are no remedies available is already inaccurate as we've seen admin block admin without getting santioned themselves. Whether this line is, however, is fuzzy. The community can't desysop admin, because policy specifically states this power is given to Arb only, but other remedies do not seem to be the exclusive domain of Arb, per policy. That said, the community is not likely to be kind to people who file trivial requests for sanctions either, nor should it be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Dennis: The community can certainly sanction an admin in many way: admins can be topic banned, for instance, they can have interaction bans placed against then, their editing can be restricted in any way conceivable except in regard to any of the bundle of abilities which comes as part of the admin package. To remove one of those capabilities is to create a "sub-admin" status, which is not in the purview of the community. Only ArbCom & Jimbo have the explicit power to desysop, and I would say that that power includes the abiliy to limit an admin's capabilities. Otherwise the community could (in theory) skirt that exclusivity by removing all of an admin's power except one trivial one, say, the power to view deleted files, on the technicality that having left the admin with one small part of the bundle, the community did not actually "desysop" anyone -- whereas the reality is that that admin will have been effectively defanged.

    No, as long as the bundle remains unitary, admins get them when a bureaucrat certifies a successful RfA, and loses them when they either give them up or they get desysoped by ArbCom. Once there's a community-based desysoping process in place, things will be different, but that's the way the system in now set up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    • You haven't shown any policy that supports this. I can see why we are losing good admin every day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Dennis: It's a logical conclusion from ArbCom's explicit remit to desysop, which has not been extended to the community. Removing part of an admin's powers is a "mini-desysoping" which is not within the community's purview. At the this time, the creation of an admin is done by community consensus, certified by a bureaucrat, and desysoping is done by ArbCom. The policing of an admin as an editor is done by the community, but the policing of an admin as an admin can only be done by the entity which has the capability of backing up its policing with the force of policy, and that is ArbCom. If the comunity was to decide it had the authority to reduce an admin's powers, the case would immediately go to ArbCom, which is under no compunction to confirm the community's decision - they would decide the case on its merits. This being the case, it makes more sense to simply bring the case to ArbCom without the community step in between, since any decision the community makes is entirely toothless without ArbCom's support.

        BTW, I'm honestly confused by your final comment: in what what way does the community's inability to restrict specific parts of an admin's capabilities contribute to "losing good admins every day"? I share your distress at the recent loss of several high-quality admins, but I'm not seeing the connection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• The community can restrict an admin's use of an admin tool, and block or ban them if the admin defies the community. Yes, the admin can appeal against a long-term restriction to ArbCom. No, the community process is not therefore a waste of time because cases with high community support, including support from respected peers, will hopefully not be appealed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• You assert that the community has this power, but you've shown no policy basis for this assertion, whereas I have shown a policy rationale for it not having this power - and hoping that such a community action wouldn't immediately go to ArbCom is mothing more than wishful thinking - it would probably go there even before the discussion had concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some would go immediately to ArbCom, but what's wrong with that? ArbCom expects the community to carefully examine issues before they are taken to ArbCom, and the consensus from an AN discussion would tell ArbCom what the desired outcome from that discussion was.

  There is no policy supporting your claim that the community may not do this. You have an argument though; viz.: "Otherwise the community could (in theory) skirt [ArbCom's exclusive right to desysop] by removing all of an admin's power except one trivial one, say, the power to view deleted files, on the technicality that having left the admin with one small part of the bundle, the community did not actually "desysop" anyone -- whereas the reality is that that admin will have been effectively defanged." Salvio explicitly addressed that in the quote at the top of this thread. De facto desysop wouldn't be tolerated by anyone, especially the admin concerned. A case approaching that degree of restriction would go to ArbCom before any resolution is reached at AN.

  Nothing in policy and no directive from WMF prevents us from doing this, and it would give the community (including other admins - many of whom give up adminning for the want of a simple community-based remedy such as this) a direct means of modifying the behaviour of an admin in one or two areas, without necessarily having to trouble ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony, my feeling is that you want this so badly that you are not taking proper notice of the arguments that have been presented against your position. As you implicitly admit, you have no policy to support your position, and you're ignoring the rather obvious argument that the only entity which had explicitly been given the task of policing admin behavior (as oppose to the editorial behavior of admins) is ArbCom, and since ArbCom was given the task of policing admins, and the community was not, the community cannot usurp what is in ArbCom's purview simply because it wants to. If you want this that badly, you'll need to change policy to create a community-based desysoping process, and you can't do that through an AN thread. Once the community has the capability of desysoping (which it does not now have, but should), then restricting admin's admin-related behavior is trivial, because it has behind it the threat of desysoping. Until that change, this proposal will amount to nothing, especially considering that there's no consensus even here for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. It's a little early for assessing consensus.

I certainly don't want this so badly that I'll ignore good argument. Earlier in this discussion I readily conceded admin restraint would be better left to ArbCom, when that seemed to be where the better argument was pointing. I again modified my view when it occurred to me that the existing right to request ArbCom scrutiny would provide enough protection against grudge actions. So, I'm more than willing to be persuaded by good argument, and I assure you I'm reading very carefully. And the "this" that I want isn't any specific process, just a more functional society here.

We don't need a policy or a WMF directive telling us we can constrain admin behaviour. You've got it the wrong way round. If you want to prevent the community from doing that, you need to find a policy or WMF directive telling us we can't. If you can't do that but still want to prevent this from happening, argue convincingly that we shouldn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am not wrong when I say that "Wikipedia belongs to the community", but at the same time there is a particular hierarchy here (not in terms of importance but in terms of proven credibility and policies) and involving the community in this scenario would mean breaking that hierarchy and as such the pyramid with the strong base of credibility. Would you give a rollback or reviewer right to a newbie with 5 edits? why would you want to give the right to judge admin actions to any one else other than Arbcom? I have seen some ANI discussions which end up one admin suggesting other admin to not edit a certain article or to drop the stick while interacting with a certain user, these remain suggestions from an admin as given to another editor. For admin tools involving the general community through arbcom should be enough and admins should have enough common sense to not use tools in areas which they don't feel they have expertise in. If not then the community in the first place has not done a good job in RFA either so how do you trust them here?  A m i t  ❤  04:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion is that where we (currently and traditionally) appoint admins based on our trust that they will not abuse any of their tools or judgement, if they fail in any one of these tasks, then that trust has been violated. I naturally believe that no sanctions should be applied without warnings, and that desysoping from the use of all tools rather than a ban from certain sysop areas should be the way to go if there is no improvement, but only as the last resort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Individual users turning up on ANI and other noticeboards contribute to the process of the project, however they are not entirely representative of the community. The Arbitration Committee is the only proper entity that should have the mandate to desysop administrators or alternatively place partial restrictions on the use of their tools. Accusations made against administrators should be taken seriously when there is prima facie evidence of abuse. Only when this evidence is properly contextualized and analyzed by elected arbitrators, who are also among the most experienced users on the project, can we expect to have a semblance of propriety towards the entire process. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well put, Nick. Leaving such actions to AN discussion would be less bureaucratic and more efficient in most cases, and not add to the AC's work load, which is why I've been considering it. Above, Kww suggested discussions about restricting an admin's tool use should be closed by a bureaucrat, to protect against self-selection by a biased closer. But this would only increase the likelihood of an honest assessment of consensus.

Can the consensus view of whoever turns up at AN be relied on, though? I've been persuaded by your succinct argument, on top of those put above, that AN is too prone to mob rule and chance, and for that reason we should refer such cases to the AC for at least ratification. That is, though the community could take this on (and if/when we instigate a robust and reliable de-sysop process we may take this on), for now, we should leave the decision to the Arbitration Committee.

I'm very concerned not to add an undue burden to the AC, though, so I hope any such cases will be very well prepared before such a request is made. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. There are even admins that have been justly and repeatedly blocked after becoming admins. I think that is clear evidence that admins are not immune to sanctions from other editors and/or by consensus. I don't see how restricting only part of their activity with such sanctions would be a problem. In fact, it would be obviously beneficial. If someone does not have enough clue to participate well in some area of this vast project, and they cannot reign in themselves, it's a good cause for the community to do that, with ArbCom as the last step, not the first. Admin actions also span a large domain. Topic-banning an admin is a good way of retaining their useful contributions while preventing the problematic ones; that applies to normal editorial contributions and to admin actions equally well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hopefully, if a good case is made at AN, and enough of their peers urge them to, an admin with intractable problems in a limited area will agree to restricting their tool use accordingly. If they don't agree, then based on all of the arguments above I don't think we should enforce the restrictions with the threat of a block or community ban. If the admin won't voluntarily modify their tool use in line with consensus, ArbCom can be asked to look at it. A number of Arbs above have indicated a readiness to consider the option of specific admin-tool restrictions, where appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting reading, Thanks Anthony. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alan. I'm still wavering here. I'm starting to think the community might keep both options open:

1. Take the case to ArbCom if the consensus is uncertain or suspect or
2. Impose restrictions if a bureaucrat finds a strong clear consensus; and the restricted admin can immediately appeal to ArbCom - who may lift or impose whatever sanctions they deem appropriate.

I hope the right to appeal to ArbCom addresses the concerns expressed by NW, JohnCD, Hut 8.5 and Nick about grudge actions. I'd appreciate their (and others') thoughts on that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am still too concerned to support this. The RfC process is better suited for this than AN would be, as it would attract a better cross-section of the community than AN. I don't dispute that the community has the authority to set up a well-managed process to restrict or desysop an administrator; I just am skeptical that AN/ANI has the authority or that a situation would arise that such a fairly-arrived-at consensus would come up that it wouldn't be just as easy for the Arbitration Committee to handle the matter by motion. NW (Talk) 12:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes a situation can be made clear enough in a careful discussion at a noticeboard. This recent case was resolved by the admin agreeing to put aside the block button for a year; but if he hadn't been persuaded by his peers, I think the evidence was clear enough for a reasonably safe community decision to require him to do so. But I would expect an unclear or complicated case at AN involving an admin's behaviour to go to RfC, just as such things do when they involve an editor's behaviour that requires a lot of teasing apart. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, I don't have a problem if Arb decides to take a sanctions discussion that is at WP:AN and moves it to Arb, since Admin issues are obviously something Arb was setup to do, but that shouldn't limit the community from initiating them, nor adjudicating them in cases where Arb isn't involved. I wouldn't support desysoping, but there have been cases where I would support interaction bans, for instance. Arb isn't needed for those cases, and of course, the admin can appeal to Arb or Arb can vacate that decision. I don't see any policy reason for saying that basic problems, even if they involve the bit, can't be dealt with here, at the lowest level. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. All editors are subject to community restrictions - topic bans, interaction bans, process bans - on activities that they are technically able to do. An admin simply has permissions that increases their technical permission, but all behaviour is still subject to restriction by community consensus. If the community decides that an admin needs to stay away from a particular process, but should retain other administrative permissions, then that's what should happen. If they violate that ban, their actions should be reverted ala WP:CSD-G5, and be subject to escalating blocks. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• No. I think that admins should be responsible in responding to friendly suggestions that they were not good at one thing or another and would be best to avoid those areas for now. There are a lot of tools in the admin toolkit, and I do not think it wise to try to specifically separate them. If you are responsible in having the toolkit you are responsible to recognizing your own strengths and weaknesses as well. If not, the best option is desysop. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've invited input to this discussion at the village pump and WT:RFA. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes it is easy to say that any admin who cannot be trusted with one tool should not be trusted with any of them. In fact, I don't disagree with that statement. However, it creates a problem because it seems to communicate that problematic admins must be either ignored or desysopped. There has to be some middle ground, especially because desysopping is not easy to do. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision history check needed

Need someone to check deleted diffs on Uri Lubrani and potentially any related articles, especially ones edited by Lamerkhav. When the Lubrani article was created, it looked like a copy/paste from somewhere else; the original revision contained components such as numbers in boxes (e.g. [2] [3]), which doesn't happen unless you copy/paste text that has citations. 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect a google translate copy of de:Uri Lubrani.--Auric talk 19:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked Sopher99 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for breaching the 1RR restriction in place on Syrian civil war, following this report. It's been questioned by another user; it'd be good if another admin could review this block. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The procedural complaint might have some merit if this wasn't someone who was already blocked on two different occasions and if there wasn't a big fat 1RR warning on top of the article talk page already. If you want to make extra sure that the block is fair, analyze their history in the article and in the topic area a bit more and see if they have been generally acting in good faith, and then adjust the block length accordingly (up or down, no prejudice). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse the block. The issue has been widely discussed on the talk page and this editor was acutely aware of it as he participated in these discussions himself. Furthermore, another admin specifically warned him about the 1RR in place only 5 days ago. Plus if you look at the talk page of the article another editor was about to file a complaint abut the same thing. On top of that, this user was worthy a block anyway for a wide range of reasons, including misrepresenting sources, repeated removal of sourced content, and repeated violations of WP:DUE WEIGHT AND WP:RS. I'd sy that a 48 hour block was extremely lenient. Pass a Method talk 00:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose unblocking the user. I did not see the report at ANEW, but I did notice the 1RR violation but chose not to do anything about it unless someone complained, which someone did. Although the unblock request is almost perfectly styled, it's hard to believe that someone with this history doesn't know the ropes. I would let the user sit out the block to ensure less disruption in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block. The block is in compliance with an arbitration ruling. Furthermore, the concerned user has been previously blocked in for being in violation of a one revert restriction placed by the Arbitration Committee as recently as April 2013. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have declined the block request, though I am, as always, happy to be overruled by the community. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

[Meant to come here before now] I agree with the block. I can't understand why this arbitration case is applied to the civil war — you might as well apply it to Liviu Librescu, a Romanian who lived in Israel for several years — but the editor obviously knew that the arbitration case was being applied to this article and kept on going anyway. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Non Admin Comment) I feel torn here. I'm inclined to assume good faith in that the editor simply didn't realize that they were, in fact, reverting. On the other hand, there's a lot of input, templates, warnings, etc. on the editors talk page about his/her editing behavior. That, combined with the fact that this isn't the first 1RR Arbitration block received. Dusti^*poke* 18:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nearly week-old edit request

Resolved

 – Edit complete.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

An edit request was made July 5 at Template talk:Infobox person, following discussion and consensus over the course of some months. As it's been nearly a week, the participating editors wanted to post a notice here and ask if an admin could go to that page. Thanks! -_Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Page move schmozzle

Could someone more experienced with page moves please help undo the tangled weave of page moves here? Note that similar set of moves were made on the 8th as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it all up. I restored the missing talkpage history and moved it under the existing content, and I removed the nest of page moves from the history of the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ta, you're a star!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest

Editors here may perhaps be interested in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Should we add some guidance about non-admin closures? (a sub-page of this one). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

On-wiki badness moves to major newspaper

The New Zealand Herald is the largest news paper in New Zealand's largest city, this morning it published this attempt to troll for information on wikipedia editor(s). The primary articles involved are Judith Collins and David Bain. Is there anything we can do about this other than being extra careful about the personal information of those involved? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably not - though I'm tempted to write a letter to the editor or journalist as the blocking admin. At least the story notes why Mr Brooking (aka Offender9000 (talk · contribs)) was blocked, though why they then give so much credence to his claims seems curious. The guy was using Wikipedia to aggressively push his views, and was engaging in potentially defamatory conduct concerning living people. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarke43's edits have been reviewed and accepted by other editors. The material reverted was usually obvious POV by Offender9000. Trying to force Clarke43 to reveal his real life identity is against WP:OUTING.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Must be a slow news day for the New Zealand Herald. The community has viewed the edits and I agree with them, I'm not see any issues with Clarke43's edits. Rather poor journalism from the NZ Herald to allow "Offender9000" to harass and attempt to out an editor. Bidgee (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The media interest is likely to be because the David Bain case is in the news again (search google news for this name; none of the current round of speculation is likely to make it into the article). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In case this gets further follow up over the coming days - it would be great if these comments could also please be 'mirrored' on to my talk page, as visitors to WP will struggle to find this discussion, especially once it gets archived. This all seems to be getting a bit out of hand. Thanks for your support. Clarke43 (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a disgusting piece of journalism, and pretty much amounts to harrassment. I think we should escalate this to WMF, and ask them to contact the author/editor/publisher. GiantSnowman 11:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember we hold to a different standard then the media does. Some may say ours is higher. I am curious if there is a connection between the banned user and the story though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the WMF can/will do anything, anyone reading the newspaper is entitled to make a formal complaint to them. I haven't looked in detail, but it may also be appropriate to complain to the New Zealand Press Council [22]. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel the WMF has a duty of care to its editors. GiantSnowman 12:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree - but even if this isn't the sort of thing they need to intervene in right away, I still think they should be notified and made aware of it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• With respect to the newspaper article, my view is the best course of action, unless more happens, is to do nothing. The media feeds on controversy, and responses, even critical ones, will make them happy and only prolong things. BTW, someone at the Herald should do a better job of proofing before they publish articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) The "writer" (or his "editor") could use some help from WP editors, given all the basic typo, grammar, and punctuation mistakes in the article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that at this time nothing needs doing. Offender9000 had a long-term pattern of trying to bully other users into outing themselves, he's just had to take it off-wiki now and found some journalist desperate enough to actually write about his theories. Best thing to do is ignore them both, but more admin eyes on the relevant articles couldn't hurt either. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• The depths to which some journalists will sink shouldn't surprise us (sadly). That's one reason why I don't like to see an over-reliance on media sources, especially with articles involving current events: they're selling a story while we desire factual accuracy.

I propose that the journalist in question be censured by the community or symbolically banned from Wikipedia. Taroaldo ✉ 03:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support with the proviso that this include formal bannination and a requirement that the guilty party be drawn through the streets of Auckland while seated backwards on an ass, the traditional punishment for one who has disgraced their profession. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef blocking of Phil Taylor for attempted WP:OUTING and working against the community. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that Mr Taylor's only edit is this polite post made without registering an account it would be impossible to ban him. If you want to ban someone, start with Offender900 who is attempting to use the NZ media to carry on a grudge against an editor in a fairly awful fashion. Also, picking fights with individual journalists tends to be a bad idea - it would be better to write a letter of complaint to the newspaper's editor or the NZ media regulator. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to salt : Kopex

Recently, Articles for creation has had a flood of articles about a company called "Kopex", such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kopex, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Kopex, or associated sandboxes, all created by Jackisback1912 (talk · contribs) or Grzegorz kopex (talk · contribs), and all of which have been fairly promptly speedy deleted via WP:CSD#G12 as being an obvious copyright infringement, only for the CSD tag to be removed, or the article to be re-created. A recent discussion here suggested blocking the editors, but I feel salting the title (and associated variations) would be a less draconian measure than tossing them out without so much of a howd'ya do. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Sounds sensible to me, but I would urge an explanatory edit summary. We sometimes salt a title when we do not think there ever should be an article with that name, but that isn't the case here. There is a real company by that name, and it may well be notable. The decision to salt is simply to avoid having to keep deleting, but if someone wants to create a legitimate article, a decent edit summary would clarify to an admin that such a title should be allowed, if the article isn't a copyvio.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Support I agree with Sphilbrick wholeheartedly. Could we perhaps insert something into the title blacklist to prevent it? I'm imagining the blacklist preventing the creation of pages with "Kopex" either as the entire title or as a separate word as part of the title, but not in such a way that something like "Alkopexian" would be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Anyone notice that the company is Kopex, the site "infringed" is http://www.kopex.com.pl/idm,17,activity.html , and the poster is Grzegorz kopex? It is worth considering that this may not be a copyvio (though COI is an issue) and there may simply be a language barrier (for example, he may not realize his talk page exists ... certainly having one little red 1 by a tab is not going to help people in that position!). It looks like he exists (with the same interest : [23]) on pl.wikipedia - maybe there's a way to break through to him that way? [24] Wnt (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for help from Piotrus; his cradlespeech is Polish, but you'd think he was a native English speaker by the quality of his writing. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(@Nyttend) Thanks  :) I can certainly leave them a note in Polish, but can you tell me clearly which editors should I leave the note, and what about? (I am currently on holidays and have limited net access making it difficult for me to investigate it by myself). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The editor is [25] and his article in the .pl version is [26]. You might try reaching him at his talk page; also there might be somewhere in the pl.wikipedia to discuss editing about a company by someone associated with it and whether you could get some third parties involved; mostly though, I'm thinking they're in a better position to clear the copyrighted content at the company and make further communication through that way... Wnt (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Referee might be useful

At Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Bulgaria where it is a teensy bit possinle that an impasse could be refereed. Right now it looks like "wall-of-text" arguments may be occurring. The other likely noticeboards (RS/N etc.) do not, in my opinion, seem likely to be the optimal places to actually get this resolved, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:Arachkheradmand in the Urmia Page is vandalism. i have a valid source Encyclopædia Britannica→ [27]. The population is mainly Azeri Turkish, with Kurdish, Assyrian Christian, and Armenian minorities. But this User by nationalism source my edit Returns. Please see Urmia and Ardabil Page History.--Samək^Talk 12:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism, both editors involved warned for continuously edit warring and breaching 3RR across multiple pages. Any more reverts on the article without establishing consensus on the talk page will result in a block. —Dark 12:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI is better for this issue. Arachkheradmand's edits are not vandalism, but both users are involved in an endless edit warring/reverting/content dispute on several articles. It's better that admins verify both users' contributions (12 and 13 July). For example, user Samak also involved in another edit warring on Qizilbash yesterday. Also, his edit summaries are too bad/poor (see his contributions). Zyma (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox royalty TfM

Please add a TfM tag to {{Infobox royalty}} as requested on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Done by User:DrKiernan -- KTC (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox member of the Knesset TfD

Please add a TfD tag to {{Infobox member of the Knesset}}, as requested on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Done -- KTC (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to ban User:Morning277

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This might seem academic, but it will help and seems blindly obvious. Still, I think any ban should be done proper and logged. This user is tied in with User:MooshiePorkFace in ways I can't explain fully, and who is already banned. This is the most prolific sock master we have by far. In the current case [28] I have already blocked 241 socks in the last 36 hours (yes, a new record) and I figure I have at least another 100 more to go. Unquestionably, there are many more undiscovered. A formal ban would make cleanup easier in the future. As it stands (de facto but not de jure banned), there will be between 100-200 G5s to do, and I might need to ask for that *after* the other work is done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban against abusive sockmaster. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support this is absolutely incredible. Dusti^*poke* 17:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support – No problem with a ban for such a prolific sockmaster. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Do I understand correctly that certain evidences suggest that two guys made numerous stubs for money? Where was this discussed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  The scope of the issue is exponentially larger than your statement. By multiple factors. Most discussions regarding it are not held onwiki for various reasons, including wp:beans and privacy policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Think it's relatively moot at this point, but support. --Rschen7754 18:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  I agree, but it is mainly to allow instant G5'ing on the spot, without concern. That is about all this does. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - no question, with socking on this scale. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support; we shouldn't need to do this, but better to do it so that people don't complain about G5 deletions for a defacto ban. Just one question — hasn't Bambifan produced many more than 341 socks? Or perhaps I misunderstand something? Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom: this is awful conduct. Thanks a lot for handling this Dennis. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  There may be masters with more found socks, this was just the largest single "bust" I've seen. I estimate more than 1000 socks exist, and likely many more. Many are created, do maintenance, are abandoned, and can't be linked due to being stale. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support pro forma ban per WP:NOTHERE, this individual's goals are incompatible with Wikipedia's. Zad68 03:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support this is pathetic conduct. Thank you for your efforts in dealing with this. Taroaldo ✉ 03:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Zad68 says it best. MarnetteD | Talk 04:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per scale of socking, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - goals are completely incompatible with wikipedia's, and, honestly, socking at this mind-boggling level indicates that his behavior is not only incompatible with guidelines and policies, but intentionally flying in the face of them. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it seems like the best way forward. - Bilby (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Given the fact that the user has caused serious disruption to Wikipedia with sockpuppets, he has exhausted patience with the community. It's game over for this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have trouble with this editor

User:Iwantfreebook start insult me in Mecha article's edit summary. Well, I made slight mistake for not point him out that there is already seperate section for anime and manga in that article (admit, I actually forgot that). Still, I'm pretty sure that isn't reason you can call fellow editor moron or accuse one for being racist. I tried talk to him, he remove my message and pretty much say (in the article's edit summary) he don't want any discussion. L-Zwei (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

First offense for personal attacks, so I've warned him without taking further action. L-Zwei, feel free to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. If Iwantfreebook wants his opinion to be taken into account, he will need to participate.—Kww(talk) 04:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox person

I've asked User:Kww to kindly revert his good-faith change at {{Infobox person}}, made in response to an edit request, as there is no consensus for it (see Template talk:Infobox person, where most of the support !votes are pasted in from a single project's talk page). However, it seems that we're in different timezones and he won't be active for a while Could another admin oblige, please, to allow further discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted temporarily. I'll reevaluate the discussion in a few days.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Despite specific instruction on the Editing subsection of the gadgets section of my preferences, VisualEditor has started to reappear on my account. I am now having to click "edit source" and not "edit this page" and for section editing I'm having to hover over 'edit' and then click 'edit source' despite clear instructions to the contrary!

Let me make one thing clear - I do not want the VisualEditor. I prefer editing the source because it is what I am used to, having been editing Wikis for several years. The VisualEditor, with all due respect to the developers, is absolutely vile and takes all the fun out of editing Wikipedia. It is the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia since Willy on Wheels.

I don't care whether it's a simple case of rectifying the bug or disabling the damn thing for good, but just get it as far away from me as possible. It is an insidious way of editing.--Launchballer 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Happened to me too today, but went away when I logged out and in again. Try that. (When it happened to me, I noticed that the whole "gadgets" tab in my preferences had temporarily vanished too, so my guess is it was a temporary malfunction of gadget loading). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Still ongoing. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Where_is_Gadgets_.3F. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Try my solution, which works 100% of the time. Better than "VisualEditor on Wheels!" Nyttend (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prod backlog

CAT:PROD is backed up to July 4. Can we please get to deleting? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I usually monitor WP:EXPROD, but for some reason they're not showing? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 19:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)