User talk:TFOWR

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

sco-1This brouker can contreibute wi a laich level o Scots.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

I will do my best to speak clearly and avoid "bad language" unless you let me know that you are happy for me to do otherwise.

Unless you request otherwise, if you post here, I'll reply here (I'd suggest you watchlist this page to make sure you see my reply). If I post on your talkpage, I'll watchlist your talkpage to look for replies there.

“ Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree. ” — Moonriddengirl et al

Click here to leave a new message.

Sockpuppetry allegation against Doradus

Thanks for the headsup. Here's the diff [1] - it looks pretty conclusive to me. As to the last part of your comment, it would have been polite for you to ask what contribution I have made to the project before suggesting to the entire community that this was my first ever edit. (no tilde on this keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.111.136 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• That edit was made by Jc3s5h (talk), not Elockid (talk).
• The edit reverted several editors, including QuartierLatin1968 (talk) and SieBot (talk), in addition to Doradus - the blatantly obvious target, however, was 92.24.104.161 - a blatant sock puppet of Vote (X) for change (as I'm sure you're perfectly well aware, being another sock puppet of Vote (X) for change). I don't believe that anyone, including yourself, was in anyway confused by this, and I'm equally sure that if Doradus took issue with Elockid's revert they could take it up with Elockid themselves.
• Vote (X) for Change is indefinitely blocked: your "contributions" are not appreciated. I felt I was being polite by stating that your current IP had made few edits: in future I'll simply block you as a sock puppet - how's that?
• While you're here - your previous crap about me editing religious articles was, well, crap. I have no interest in religious articles, I'm agnostic, bordering on atheist. Your selective interpretation of my talkpage post was also crap. I invite anyone interested to review the original thread, and judge for themselves whether Vote (X) for Change is capable of honesty.

TFOWR 11:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You do seem to have an issue with Vote (X) for Change. I think you would be better advised to stand back and let others exercise their own judgment. In the time that I've been contributing to Wikipedia I've not been aware of editors queuing up to lambast this particular contributor. The way the system works seems to be that other editors first air their views on the offending editor's talk page. If the behaviour continues, an administrator may impose a short block, which may be followed by blocks of increasing length if the situation does not improve. An indefinite block is the last stage in the procedure. Examination of Vote (X) for Change's record shows it was retired at the time the ballot it was concerned with closed and a single block was effected at that time. Nothing there supports your allegation that it alienated any member of the community other than the two troublemakers Jc3s5h and Chris Bennett it was in dispute with at the time.

Jc3s5h's reversion has to be examined in the light of the prior history. If your theory is correct, what is the explanation for the reverts performed by Jc3s5h to the edits of Siebot, QuartierLatin1968 and Doradus? As we are both in agreement that none of these is a sockpuppet there can be no objection to all their edits being restored. If we consider only the complaints of the editors who don't have a POV - pushing agenda, three striking facts emerge.

(1) They are directed to personality, rather than content

(2) Vote (X) for Change displays a markedly Christian agenda

(3) All the complainants are either self - admitted or apparent non - believers.

Apart from yourself, as a Japanese Atama is most likely to be non - Christian and tmorton166 describes him/herself as a scientific humanist. A non - believer would not realise that describing himself as a "Buddhist/Sikh/Pagan educated by non - Christians/atheists/robots" will inevitably cause deep offence to the Buddhist and Sikh communities.

I've been following the debate and my recollection is that there was a reference to religious project pages, not articles. Your declaration that you have no interest in religious articles sits uneasily beside the reference to Catholic Church elsewhere on this talk page, where the correspondent takes your familiarity with this article for granted. Also, at the beginning of the archive extract you say that you are a regular visitor to East - West Schism.

Long term protection of Gregorian calendar will only exacerbate religious differences. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV, was raised partly to ensure that no one major religion got any more coverage than any other. Had there been a worldwide outcry, such as the one which led to the cancellation of Florida's "Burn a Qu'ran" demonstration scheduled for today, it might have been justified, but negative feedback (apart from Jc3s5h) was zero. We don't know (because he won't say) whether he is pushing what he conceives to be the Catholic viewpoint. You can easily find out, since the Pope is visiting Scotland on Thursday, by going to Edinburgh before then, handing the Church's representative a copy of the disputed diff, and asking to be informed of any comments which His Holiness may have on the subject. 81.147.186.91 (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change does seem to have an issue with sock-puppetry. I think Vote (X) for Change would be better advised to stand back and let non-blocked editors exercise their own judgement. In the time I've been contributing to Wikipedia I've seen many sock puppeters come and go; Vote (X) for Change is just another in a long line of ex-editors who don't understand why their "contributions" are not appreciated. Vote (X) for Change is indefinitely blocked - that didn't occur because Vote (X) for Change was doling out choclates and roses.

I don't believe I've contributed to religious project pages either. I've contributed to dispute resolution, as I'm required to do as an admin. This includes protecting pages as required, and it is through protecting one religious article due to a dispute (unrelated to calendars) between two editors. This was an article, and my participation was on the talkpage and solely in terms of dispute resolution.

I assume you're joking about me going to Embra. Not going to happen. Either me going, or the Catholic Church taking your complaint any more seriously than I do.

So, let's recap: your complaint against Elockid was crap. The diff shows it was another admin entirely. You posted this complaint to ANI at least twice, and no one took it remotely seriously (indeed, as anything other than crap). You attempted to portray me as involved in editing religious articles and/or project pages - again, this was crap. You misrepresented a talkpage post - again, this was crap. You objected to me labelling your crap as "crap", while continuing to spout crap. I really do think you'd be better advised to stand back and let more detached editors exercise their own judgement - yours is clearly questionable. TFOWR 11:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You appear to me to be someone who gets worked up about trivial issues (A "Type A" personality, in the jargon). Surely you can get your point across without swearing every other sentence. Whether you edited an article or its talk page is just a matter of detail. What interests me most about your post is where you say

Vote (X) for Change is just another in a long line of ex - editors who don't understand why their "contributions" are not appreciated.

There is a list of ex - editors - the Banned List - and I don't see Vote (X) for Change's name on that.

Then you say

Vote (X) for Change is indefinitely blocked - that didn't occur because Vote (X) for Change was doling out choclates and roses.

I don't follow the reasoning here - if editors don't dole out "chocolates and roses" they don't get blocked either.

The link to Elockid is that (s)he protected the talk page of a protected article, which is outside Wikipedia guidelines.

So far as the Pope's visit is concerned (he's coming to Glasgey as well, by the way) I can't imagine that the Catholic Church would have the slightest interest in anything which is said about it on Wikipedia.

On misrepresenting what is said on talk pages, were your schoolteachers really robots or just decent human beings who people like you just like to make fun of because of their profession? 81.147.186.91 (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got me banged to rights! I am indeed subject to the psychological failings you identify - I'm so crushed!

I'm not sure why you'd look at the list of banned editors: I've never said that you're anything other than indefinitely blocked, surely? Guilty conscience, maybe? Can't help there...

I'm sorry you can't follow my reasoning re: choccies and roses, I can't really help there either.

If you believe Elockid failed to follow protection policy then you are really in the minority. It's standard practice to protect pages when they're subjected to frequent attacks by sock puppets.

I too can't imagine that the Catholic Church has any interest in your witterings - that was, after all, what I said previously: I assume you're joking about me going to Embra. Not going to happen. Either me going, or the Catholic Church taking your complaint any more seriously than I do.

I'm sorry, too, that you didn't understand the talkpage comment that you didn't understand. I can't really help there, either.

In summary: you clearly have lots of issues, none of which are going to be solved by your continued presence here, either on Wikipedia or, more specifically, my talkpage. TFOWR 13:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Have I made a complaint to the Catholic Church? No.

Do I understand what you're on about? No.

Does anybody else understand what you're on about? No.

Goodnight. 81.147.186.91 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE traffic

I wonder if anybody would object to having each discussion collapsed with the note of 'opened' or 'closed' in the collapse bar? GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I really hope not - that page is getting unmanageable, and Scolaire made a good point about transcluding 92k of Talk:Republic of Ireland discussion... suggest it and see, but you've got my support unless there's a compelling reason I've not thought of. TFOWR 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Another idea: would automatic copying of an ongoing discussion at an article also be possible? (Kinda like they do for Afds). This would sooth the concerns of RA & Scolaire. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's something I've been talking to Fmph about (#Snitching?, above). I'm sure it would be possible, and it would sidestep RA's concerns about where discussions take place. Fmph reckons RA is the person to ask, so I've pinged RA, but realistically any technical bod with AfD experience should be able to do it. TFOWR 19:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

'Tis great, there's always a solution. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my outdenting corrections. They're necessary to keep discussions from going into 50+ lines with 2 word sentences. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries - and good idea. I'm not hugely protective of my comments, so long as the original meaning is maintained. Indent, outdent, it's all the same to me ;-) TFOWR 16:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

pending

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Announcement_about_Pending_Changes - Hopefully that means I can continue to request it, since the trial was allegedly over I have had to request higher levels of protection when pending would have done the job. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I really want to disagree with Jimbo sometime - I've even supported in RfAs on the basis that the candidate had the balls to disagree with Jimbo. But I've already commented - and my comment was to agree with Jimbo ;-)

I had a feeling that you weren't keen on PC - I guess I was wrong? FWIW, your "higher levels of protection when pending would have done the job" is my reason for supporting it. I appreciate that some people are concerned - legitimately - that pending changes is going to get used everywhere (like it is at de.wiki, apparently) but that's something we can solve through policy. We have policy saying when semi gets used and when full gets used - I see no reason why we can't have same for PC1 and PC2 etc.

My obvious political starting point is freedom - IPs get to edit, no one gets blocked, no pages get protected - and then work from there. So I prefer PC1 to semi, I prefer semi to full, etc. I get the feeling that a lot of the folk opposed to pending changes are starting from the same point, just reaching different conclusions.

Anyway, Jimbo's comment has already kicked off a shitstorm - comments about proposals with near-unanimous support. Bollocks. I !voted in at least one proposal on that very page, and I stopped after the 97th proposal, so I really can't say that that last proposal was near-unanimous - it was just that most folk had long ago given up hope of anything getting done. So I'm very glad Jimbo at least had the balls to move things forward. TFOWR 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

...and Jimbo's line is not to remove pending from articles. Dammit. I spent the past few days doing just that. And at least one or two pages I put back to semi... TFOWR 20:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what told you do do that? I support anything that helps protect articles from attack content. Jimbo has the pulse, he is in this case completely correct, a few vocally activist users, with huggle as an alternative should not be allowed to derail what is clear support for continuation of the tool. If I was Jimbo I would log off for a day or two, I expect the vocal opposer's will be livid, as I have seen its mostly the free-speechers, and the vandal fighters (why support a tool that takes your position away) that vocally object. The simple truth is its a simple tool that helps us protect articles, this is the foundations clear position, many people here are not interested in that position at all. If we truly allowed the vocal activists to control the wikipedia we would be closed down in six months. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No one told me, I did it so to occupy the moral highground when dealing with opposers. And, slightly Machiavellian, but so if a page I'd un-PC'd suffered I'd have an example to use ;-) TFOWR 20:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am so happy that I can still have the tool to use and request if it is needed. The other day an article was semi protected for a year just because of a singe disruptive user and pending would have been plenty to restrict him, none of the free-speechers and huggle warriors reverted any of the attack additions, occasionally they were there for more than a day and picked up by google bots and propagated across the whole internet, it is indefensible that wikipedia is responsible for that sort of libelous degradation of a living persons global image. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand the free-speech argument - we have semi now and it's non-controversial. PC1 is much better than semi. "If we can't hear the IP the IP isn't being censored." Weird. TFOWR 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I also do not see it at all but perhaps that is an geographical issue, users from the USA have the right to free speech or at least believe they do whereas in the UK we are used to not having some unalienable right to say anything you want. This claim is also linked to one of the original goals that anyone can add anything they want, which might have sounded idealistic in the early days but now that we have half a million bios of living people and are unable to watch them, looks extremely dated.Your point is quite correct, I have the feeling that for the project to continue the alternative if pending is not implemented is the semi protection of a half a million BLP articles as the demanded alternative. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

archive bot

Are you experienced enough to help me with this, I altered my archive format in this edit closer to your format but the bot is not coming around, any ideas as to the issue? Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's weird - you haven't changed Misza's config at all. The only issue I had with Misza was when I tried to shift the config into my talkpage header - that's not the case here. As far as I can see, the way you've done it is more or less identical to the way I've done it. But the only thing that would stop the bot is the config be broken... and as it hasn't changed that's not the case. I'll keep looking, but make no promises. Maybe try WP:VPT or the Help desk? (True story: first time I asked a question at the help desk was a month ago...) TFOWR 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, its likely a minor issue. Chzz got it working B4 and I might ask him or revert my edit and go again... I love the help desk it is well responsive although archive bots are a bit of a specialist issue.Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Stewart Brewing

You ensured the COI tag was maintained on this article, but where's the COI at the moment? It seems to have been stripped of any COI/fluff/advertising to me. Bigger digger (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I copy-edited it, mostly for COI/spam, a few days ago, but the IP responsible has been quite active since then. {{COI}} is intended to serve as a warning that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and that the article may require clean up. It's possible that the latter case may not apply (though I think the infobox could probably do with a good check, and any external links too) but the former case certainly does. TFOWR 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

/slaps head. Sorry I hadn't seen that the IP was blocked for being a sock, I guess your explanation is acceptable ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, but ... neither had I! I'll go off and dig up the gossip now ;-) My reasoning was based mostly on the editor who created the article (I forget their name, but something like "StewartB") and then the run of IP edits from a few days ago. Definitely worth keeping an eye on, though, and thanks for nudging me - it made me go off and look again at the article. The external link was OK (official site) and the infobox does seem OKish (a little too long and product-listy) but otherwise OK. I suspect there will be more IPs, though...! TFOWR 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! The latest IP (the one who removed the COI tag) looks suspiciously similar to the blocked-sock IP... definitely worth keeping an eye on ;-) TFOWR 21:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quran-burning rename

   IMO, speaking admin to admin, that you made a called-for move at (and back to) 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy, but would better have noted in your comment on the talk paage that

_ the proposer of the rename was the one whose move was at best the last straw in eliciting the protection,

_ the proposal elicited no support, & 6 quick objections (IMO, each clearly indicating, at least implicitly, pref for the immediately prior title), and

_ protection was a unilateral act of an admin, and does not constitute an implicit request that other admins refrain from changing the title during protection.

   I also think using "Meh." in the talk summary (BTW, i needed Wikt to distinguish it from the expression of disgust, "Feh."?) in declaring the move, may be at best too informal, too seemingly casual, for an action requiring admin priv. (Oh, shit: i'm about say that as an edit to your protected talk page!)
   On the other hand, good call on all the direct results!
--Jerzy•t 00:05 & 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I didn't feel too comfortable moving it, but I couldn't see who had protected it in the logs, and as you note the proposer moved it immediately after proposing. That said, that's all the more reason for a more considered comment than "meh"... so apologies for that. I was hoping to be light-hearted and not too bitey with respect to the proposer, but re-reading it I'm not convinced I even achieved that - c'est la vie. I try not to do admin actions late in the day for that very reason... Anyway, thanks for your note. If it was you who protected it, apologies for wheel-warring/treading on toes - not something I tend to do, but the "proposed" title was so clearly unnecessary, and the support clearly wasn't there. TFOWR 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be me! I added the move prot, but which page's log it's in beats the hell out of me! It's been moved more times than most articles ever are in their entire lives! I'll dig it out of my log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

log entry:

• (del/undel) 22:39, 10 September 2010 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level of 2010 United States Qur'an-burning controversy [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 04:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Highly visible page: please make up your minds on the talk page) (hist | change)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry HJ - I've just apologised to you on the talkpage, too (Jerzy, I interpreted your advice as "leave a more considered comment explaining my actions", so I left a proper comment). OK, I can see all the gory details at the redirect's logs, that explains my earlier inability to see... and puts my mind at rest slightly. But HJ - I never thought that my first wheel-war would be with you ;-) I'm going to stop now, before I do further damage...! TFOWR 00:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's wheel warring. At least you didn't delete it, anyway, much as it needs to be, but I couldn't post my opinion of the whole thing without violating BLP! You only moved it to a consensual title. I put the move prot on to stop people moving it back and forth based on "I proposed it, nobody objected in 30 seconds, so there must be a consensus", which is annoying, and, as you can see, it makes one hell of a mess of the logs! ;) Anyway, no apology necessary (even if it was a reversal, I believe a wheel war requires a reversal of a reversal). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoil sport! There was me thinking I was being controversial ;-) Useful learning (or remembering...) experinece for me - I had got into a good habit of doing certain types of things at certain times, and serious admin bizness was something I did earlier in the day... this is why. Various things - real-life and WT:BISE - have distracted me from my routine, and I'm paying the price. Time to get back into my routine... TFOWR 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Transcluding

I've done that. It's a bit complicated becaue there are so many pages involved but should be OK. You can see it here. (Though, still favour simply taking discussions to the talk pages.) --RA (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Question.

Hi, User:174.125.215.61 marked his article as a GA himself without even sending it for review. I undid it, but was wondering if there was anything else I should do. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 02:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - though it might be an idea to let the IP know about Wikipedia:Good articles. I suspect the IP simply doesn't know how the Good Article process works, and felt that they had created a "good article". TFOWR 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

...on second thoughts - The IP was only active for an hour or so, several hours ago. I doubt they'd ever see any message. The article is at AFD right now. I'm trying to avoid AFD as much as possible, but this article really does look like a case for deletion or incubation. Unreleased, very little detail about it as yet, etc. TFOWR 08:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

Where as your closing of the debate on the Talk page about British Isles was in line with the views expressed, as a fair number of the 'do not add' responses were arguments based on the fact to some it is contentions - this is to me a POV position and as a result I am minded to tag the article {{POV}} for failing to mention it.Codf1977 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There was one oppose that I discounted for that very reason, but the others - while they did in some cases cite contention - had other arguments as well. On balance, I felt "non consensus" was reasonable, as there were valid arguments to exclude as well as valid arguments to include. A {{POV}} tag, however, would potentially draw in new faces - which could be beneficial. TFOWR 14:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying your closer of the debate was in any way at fault, I have taged the page in the hope as you mentioned others may be draw in. I have cross posted to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard hereCodf1977 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I've commented there with a link to my WT:BISE proposal, and commented that outside eyes are very, very welcome. TFOWR 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please may you review this edit ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it, and the back/forth edits that preceded it, and commented on the talk page - basically WTF? All of you need to stop edit warring - it's advertised at NPOVN, let someone neutral and uninvolved make the call. TFOWR 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The NPOVN, sound advice. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revelation_of_personal_identity.2C_and_lot_more.
Message added 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at User:crazy-dancing.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Have had a look around and all logos seems to be showing fine now. Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll let ANI know. Thanks for looking into this. TFOWR 12:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TFOWR. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 11:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comments on my talk page

If you are going to leave me a terse warning about incivility on my talk page then I expect you to also do the same regarding the editor who is constantly harassing me on my talk page - you only have to read his latest offerings for further evidence of this. I really don't appreciate the way in which you have conducted yourself in this matter - it's completely unacceptable from an administrator. All you have managed to do is to encourage the other editor's abuse! Afterwriting (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Expect away all you want - but maybe check the past history first next time. I've already replied on your talkpage, but in summary I've blocked GPW for this kind of behaviour in the past, and I will have no hesitation in blocking either of you if you don't knock it off - i.e. disengage or find a way to get along. I sincerely doubt GPW feels encouraged by my comment - they are perfectly well aware that any repetition of the behaviour which led to their previous block will result in another block of increased duration. Complaints about my conduct can, of course, be directed to WP:ANI. TFOWR 12:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all completely irrelevant - and you should realise this yourself. Do you seriously expect me to check your history with him? And so what anyway? Your whole response to this matter has been completely inadequate - editors are entitled to expect better from administrators than this. Afterwriting (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You breached WP:CIVIL. I warned you. You then tried to use GPW's behaviour as some sort of justification for your behaviour. Now, if you have a complaint against my conduct I've already told you that you can take it to WP:ANI. Do you intend to do that, or would you prefer to continue arguing the toss? If it's the latter, I'm happy to let you get the last word: I'll ignore any further comments from you here or at your talkpage. TFOWR 12:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You really just don't get this at all. Why do you have such a problem recognising your obvious failures in handling this matter? And don't make false accusations that I "tried to use GPW's behaviour as some sort of justification for your behaviour". This is both false and very offensive. If you cannot do your job as an administrator consistently and responsibly - and without making gratuitous comments about things that are actually none of your business - then you should seriously reconsider being one. As I wrote before, editors are entitled to expect better than this from administrators. This is one of the worst cases of the misuse of an administrator's "authority" that I have yet come across. Afterwriting (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've requested review at ANI. TFOWR 13:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Something ugly I just threw together

It's not incredibly pleasant on the eyes since I got lazy and just threw it together, but behold what happens if you add giftig_toolbox_sidebar=true; to your js (assuming you still have my toolbox.js imported). I'll probably make it look a little (or a lot) better later on if I get time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually commented it out, because I still had issues with some tabs (generally the ones that I hadn't used that much, being bogged down in WT:BISE and not doing my fair share of admin-y stuff as a result...) but I've just un-commented it. I'm using Chrome, and I get a very thin bar (with no content) under the "langauges" box on the left-hand side (Monobook, Chrome, etc). I'm guessing that's not what I'm supposed to see ;-) Incidentally, I keep meaning to take a closer look at toolbox.js - I'm sure I should be able to work out why I have issues with it that the rest of you don't (I also have issues with easyblock.js, which no one else seems to have... so experience with toolbox.js would help me resolve my easyblocking issues...) TFOWR 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, multi-browser compatibility (and in wikipedia, multi-skin compatibility as well); the bane of the lazy developer... ;) I'll come up with some fixes and additions at some point, but right now it's mainly for my convenience anyway. Let you know if you find out why chrome has issues with it and I'll see if I can improve its compatibility with other browsers / skins. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and will do. I've kept toolbox.js in my monobook for now, it'll "encourage" me to avoid admin-y stuff, which is good because I've got a ton of off-wiki stuff to do yesterday..., so testing will be quick if needed. TFOWR 14:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)