Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 23 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 92 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 51 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 42 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 6 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0
TfD	2	0	2
MfD	2	1	3
FfD	2	3	5
RfD	27	20	47
AfD	0	3	3

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

(Initiated 42 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Plastikspork. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 298 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 14 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 9 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Discussions in need of closure

Thanks. Werieth (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bump Werieth (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bump Werieth (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bump Werieth (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bump Werieth (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this easy...

...to avoid accountability for your actions. I would be interested to hear opinions/comments on the following "hypothetical" example:

a user has had more than one report filed at ANI, by different users, within two weeks
the user was duly notified on his/her talk page for each report
during the time each report was active, the user was editing daily on Wikipedia
the user made no comment on any of the ANI reports
the first report has already been archived
the second report has concerns expressed by several users, but no response from the individual in question, after more than five days
failure to engage in a discussion at ANI is, in this example, an extension of some of the other disruptive behaviors which generated the reports in the first place

Is it really that simple? Can someone engage in behavior which is of concern to other editors on Wikipedia, and then repeatedly choose to ignore ANI discussions without consequence? Disclosure: within the context of the hypothetical, I have neither reported the user to ANI nor am I the user being reported. Taroaldo ✉ 01:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the right place for a question like this, But I'm at a loss as to where the right place would be, maybe the village pump?. However, I'll nibble. The answer would be no. Persistent non-response to an editor's complaint is not acceptable. Ok, if in the first instance of being reported to ANI, they don't show up but cease the behaviour that they were reported for then there is no issue. If the editor behaviour is raised at ANI again but by numerous editors then there is a case for a preventative block, pending admin investigation. This has happened before and will no doubt happen more in the future. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out a better place to ask this question than here. It isn't really a hypothetical, but if I start citing specifics then there will be a third discussion open, which wouldn't be productive. My main concern is that there doesn't seem to be a practical process in place to deal with this type of situation. Neither of the two reports I cited received any administrator comment — perhaps everyone was waiting for a response from the user. If a user is uncivil/disruptive in their interactions with other editors sufficient to get an ANI report every few weeks but is not so blatant as to attract immediate administrator intervention (i.e. outside of ANI), then that user can seemingly ignore the ANI discussions without consequence (so far as I have observed). Failure to manage this effectively will only serve to frustrate productive editors who may end up leaving the project as many have done before them. Taroaldo ✉ 10:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is, in fact, an actual issue with their editing, and there is consensus that there needs to be a block, topic-ban, etc. in response to it, then their lack of comment in the AN/I discussion has no bearing on things. They, presumably, read the notice, and chose not to comment in their defense (or otherwise...), then whatever remedy needs to be applied is applied regardless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taroaldo - It's impossible to comment without knowing the context of what drove you to this question. All we have is your perception. I thought I knew what you were talking about until you said there had been no admin comments and now I'm at a loss. I'll only say this: some ANI reports are frivilous and others arn't structured in a way that makes sense and a third group are disputes that admin's won't touch with a remote controlled robot and a 20 ft pole.--v/r - T P 01:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is meant to be general but it was prompted by a real situation which still has one active report. I didn't feel it would be appropriate to provide diffs for illustrative purposes at AN while a report is still open at ANI. I have provided links on your talk page so you can see the full context. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Taroaldo, is that we can't make any definitive statements when you speak in pointed vagueries. Your initial post amounts to "Can we all agree that evil is bad?" If everyone agrees, so what? Unless we know exactly what situation you are talking about, we can't make any statements about whether or not the situation is or is not being dealt with properly. We have no way to even know if your characterization of the situation is accurate unless we can view the entirety of the situation with our own eyes and arrive at our own conclusions. --Jayron32 04:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the question cannot be answered without the example on which it was based, then here is the example: Report 1 was archived without result and Report 2 was de-archived on June 27. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 04:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I get a few minutes and see what I can figure out. --Jayron32 19:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note the second report has been archived again: Report 2. Taroaldo ✉ 04:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, we need admins interested in Africana or at least interested in admining in that area. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes please

this was brought to my attention. I had a very quick look at the contribs. I'm thinking there's a WP:CIR issue in the English language sense. I'm not really up for any drama, but I think it's something that should be looked at. I'll drop them a link to this thread now. — Ched : ? 21:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw another case a couple of days ago of a clueless editor accidentally creating pages in the category namespace using HotCat. Has some editing function changed recently that makes that an easy mistake? Looie496 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it I've seen the same thing. I've deleted that category and informed [2] the user they apparently were attempting to communicate with. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Looie's query, I have a suspicion that HotCat may have been enabled by default for new accounts since several months ago; this has the effect that when a new editor goes to another editor's talk page in order to communicate with them, they see a "+" symbol at the bottom of the page, in exactly the position where some other websites have a "+" symbol to click on for "add new post", and thus click it in order to add their message. (Although I'm not entirely sure that explains everything going on in this particular case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge is correct. For the past few months a lot of new editors have mistakenly added categories thinking they were using an editing interface. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know when and where it was decided to turn on HotCat by default. That doesn't seem like a real good idea, the category system here is not something a total noob should be diving right into. The fact that several of us have seen this same problem already would tend to support that idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. On the one hand I am relieved that at least there was a discussion but it apparently did not occur to anyone that this was kind of a big decision and should have been listed at WP:CENT at the very least, not just decided by about ten users. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many more than ten users have found it problematic. I brought it up at VPT a while back, and feedback was almost entirely against the measure as implemented. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think it is time for a proper RFC on the matter. The figure of ten is about how many people seem to have particpated in that discussion, but in fact only four users voiced support for turning it on for all registered users on a permanent basis. This never should have been closed the way it was and it certainly never should have been implemented. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we can get it turned off for new users it would cut down on this mistaken category creating. --Rs chen 7754 22:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is open. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a few blocked editors putting their unblock requests inside category statements too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Swiss town TfD tag

Resolved

– done -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is needed, to add a TfD tag to the protected {{Infobox Swiss town}}. The markup needed is:

{{Template for discussion/dated|page=Infobox Swiss town|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 29#Template:Infobox Swiss town|help=off}}

ASAP, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

76.189.109.155 and drama

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposal 1

proposal closed for improvement - see Proposal 2 below

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - The day Bwilkins is rendered defenseless, we're screwed.--v/r - T P 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

participating in discussions at noticeboards unless he is the subject of the discussion
participating in discussions and/or changes to policies, essays and/or guidelines
harassing or being uncivil to any other user or admin (broadly constructed)
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)[reply]

Support Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support A diva exit is not a reason to discontinue the discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - Mr X 01:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 - T P 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 - T P 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 - T P 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 - T P 17:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - T P 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - T P 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
“"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)[reply]
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 - T P 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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 - T P 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@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? - Mr X 18:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a rather good day, actually. I'm not upset at MONGO, I just disagree with that point is all.--v/r - T P 19:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I think my threading confused the issue. I was referring to your prior posts here, here and here. - Mr X 19:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 - T P 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Baiting and taking the bait, that's all.--v/r - T P 02:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Andy, you apparently need a reminder that will show why you should stop throwing stones.[3][4] 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--Laun chba ller 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Support per the supporting arguments. Doc talk 09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson unblock request

Anderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in September 2012 by Kudpung, and now he wishes to invoke the standard offer. This is the text of his UTRS, which he has agreed to have copied here:

I've been away from Wikipedia for 3 quarters of a year, I've learned my lesson and there will be no nonsense/sock-puppetry from me like the last time i was blocked for it, i will follow the restrictions on my talk page, and all i'll be doing is making decent contributions, and i will revert vandalism without issue.

Please review this request and determine whether Anderson should be let back. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock if he's telling the truth. Disregard this support if anyone provides solid evidence of recent sockpuppetry or other shenanigans, but if he's being honest, sure, why not. --Jayron32 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I've followed him since his first day here and very familiar with all the other accounts as well. While he has gained some clue on the way, there were a lot of problems with his vandal patrolling and biting or simply miss identifying vandalism. I would feel better if he completely avoided CVUA and vandal patrolling if he comes back, at least for 6 months. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When Anderson was last active, he did waste the time of a lot of people. In my opinion the only way he could come back is if he agrees to unblock conditions that would keep him away from the areas where he had trouble. To facilitate those negotiations I suggest unlocking his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an excellent idea. I have no problem whatsoever allowing a few, say three admin to have the conversation with him, come to a solution and implement it. I think you would be an excellent one of those, and I'm happy to bow out and accept whatever you three (plus Anderson) were to conclude a reasonable set of restrictions would be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*User:Spartaz has stated that the WP:BASC is now looking into this block and he recommends that we leave it in their hands. That sounds reasonable to me, since they will be able to review the email themselves and decide how serious it is. I suggest that this thread be closed.EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Spartaz talking about someone else in that comment than whom this thread is about? GB fan 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, mental lapse on my part. That was a different user. I confirm my earlier suggestion that we unlock Anderson's talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access restored: I think it would be a good idea for people to talk to him and, if desired, ask him to agree to certain conditions before unblocking. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My impressions from the last time around were that Anderson was friendly and enthusiastic, but didn't take Wikipedia serious enough, to the point of treating it like a video game...shoot the bad guys (vandals) and try to "level up" (rollbacker, reviewer, etc.). My main issue was that he often got false positives while reverting vandalism, hitting good faith IP editors with high level vandal templates. Then there was the clerking of WP:PERM, and finally the sock-puppetry trying to avoid the restrictions. On the good side, the ability to wait several months with no problems/socking shows an increase in maturity in my mind.
The ideal solution, in my mind, would be something that provided Anderson with an outlet for his passion, but protected Wikipedia from unintentional collateral damage. If I remember correctly, in prior discussions we had been talking about technical ways of disabling automatic editing (including Twinkle) but I don't remember if that is possible or not. If it is, I do recommend that. I'd also suggest a ban on templating editors until he demonstrates that he can tell the difference between good faith edits and vandalism. Anyway, that's my recommendation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional unblock. There's no denying that this, of course, is another block evasion especially where he was clearly asked to make any further unblock requests through BASC. However, he has been patient for 9 months, and not wishing to stifle the return of a young editor who was editing in good faith but simply, and clearly, failed to understand the rules, I'm prepared to give him another chance. Conditions as far as I'm concern would echo the suggestions that his return would be subject to strict limitations: mainspace content work only, no page patrolling, no tagging of articles, no warning other users, no involvement in meta areas, no vandal reverts, no applications for additional user rights, and no use of Twinkle, until he has demonstrated that he understands the reasons for his block. Preferably for a couple of months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anderson agrees entirely with these restrictions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support Kudpung's restrictions here. It can be revisited at WP:AN in 6 months if Anderson wants to, but it is the best chance for him to participate and adapt. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A backlog in very old AfDs

We need a crack group of sysops to close all these very old AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. The oldest is two weeks past the deadline. I've done several already, but there's a whole bunch more. Peace. -- Y not? 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much more undercontrol now. I hope I haven't broken the wiki. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to help, but I was always two clicks behind Spartaz so I gave up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hot damn! you're a dynamo, Spartaz! -- Y not? 18:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure how good that is as I'm already getting the challenges on my talk page. Its been so long since I closed AFDs I had forgot about that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ach, don't worry 'bout that. When I do the "Old AFD" sweep it's an unusual day when you don't get that - after all, they're the ones no-one else wanted to close. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - A side effect of closing that causes admins to take an extended vacation from closing discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of administrator Bbb23; concerns of abuse of position and harassment, vindictiveness

EXIT, STAGE LEFT

OP has declared intent to withdraw, no need to keep this open anymore. --Jayron32 04:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

1st issue

I've had an issue with this admin since what I believe was an abuse of his admin tools and an unjust block by him back in March. Mind you, I've only been blocked once at Wikipedia and it was by this very admin. Back in March of this year, Bb23 blocked me for edit warring, as he stated on the Administrative Noticeboards, but in the same breath pardoned the other user who was edit warring with me as shown here [5] where he lets Canoe know he's not blocking him but merely verbally admonishing him for his edit warring. Here are examples of Canoe's edit warring and even violation of the 3RR, as shown here [6]; Here [7]; here; [8]; here [9]; here [10] and here [11]. Mind you, I was only reverting on basis that the edit in question was a stable edit and the only issue as concluded by uninvolved parties was that the edit in question was too lengthy and should be scaled down, as shown here [12]. It was concluded at the end of that debate on the matter that the edit in question was well sourced but just had issues in terms of undue weight. I was trying to explain this to Canoe, but for whatever reason he was under the impression it was a content dispute despite everything being sourced.

But the central point here is that I was reverted and blocked on basis of edit warring by Bbb23 while he verbally pardoned the other user's edit warring for whatever reason. I don't contest my block but conclude that I will just retire. However, I have been urged by other editors not to retire and that my edits are valuable. So I reluctantly returned.

2nd issue

However, it wouldn't be long before Bbb23 showed up again. On the same article in question in which I do a lot of editing on and sourcing, he made a drastic reversion of stable edits without first discussing on the article's talk page at all. In doing so, the admin incorporated a long series of typos, grammatical errors, misinformation, and other inaccuracies. Here are his long series of reversions on stable edits without first discussing: [13].

So as to avoid an edit war, I don't revert Bbb23's edits but take time out of my busy schedule to correct the many errors, typos, and solecisms he has incorporated, as shown here [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]. Despite my spending a great deal of time going to all the trouble of correcting Bbb23's version of the edit as opposed to a full-on revert back to the stable edit (which is what I could have done but was afraid of him abusing his tools again), this isn't good enough for Bbb23. He immediately reverts back to his edit that's littered with typos, random parenthesis in the middle of nowhere, extra periods, a sentence on its own and out place, etc, as shown here: [23] in which he states "Your edits to the article aren't helpful, adding bloat for no purpose." The admin only gives off when I tell him that his reversions qualify as vandalism as he's incorporating typos, solecisms, and other misinformation and is communicating nothing on the talkpage, as shown here [24].

3rd issue

Bbb23 doesn't completely give off however. As opposed to continuing on with that situation, he decides to show up about 3 weeks later in the middle of an Administrative Noticeboard grievance I was having with another user. In the Administrative Noticeboard discussion I'm involved in with another editor, not only does Bbb23 heavily take sides with the other editor I'm in a disputes with, but he brings up the previous editing dispute I had with him in a way that paints a negative picture of myself and follows this up with a long series of personal attacks as shown here [25] where although he does acknowledge that I try to ignore what I feel is harassment from the user in that matter and try to let disputes go, still finds it necessary to label by me as dismissive, manipulative, arrogant, and that I think I'm better than everyone else. As you'll note in the previous diff, he stated that I thought I was better than everyone else and unconstructive because of my statement of "Goodbye" at the end of my Administrative Noticeboard post to communicate that I felt I had stated my piece and wanted to leave the matter up to the admins as opposed to going on and on. Also in the post, he referred to a user's edits that agreed with me as "garbage" but goes on about how I'm uncivil, unconstructive, manipulative, dismissive, and arrogant.

When I defend myself against Bbb23's personal attacks in that Admin Noticeboard discussion, Bbb23 again irrelevantly brings up his previous personal editing matter with me and states that all my edits on that article in question are horrible, as shown here [26].

4th issue

Looks like this might be an ongoing theme because the admin starts with me again today. The admin showed up on an article and reverted me claiming there's an edit war going on and that I need to go to the article's talkpage even though it was hardly an edit war. As shown here [27], I reincorporate my addition into an article claiming that the reason for removing it doesn't stand per a Wikipedia policy that I was even able to provide. Unsurprisingly, the admin involved himself in my issue again, reverting my edit and telling me that I've been rejected and need to go the talk page, as shown here [28] AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Regarding the last, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When multiple editors have indicated that 'trivia' (as you have yourself described it) about a tv show neither featuring George W. Bush nor parodying George W. Bush doesn't belong in our article on George W. Bush, attempting to edit-war it in is inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your number two? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - ~~Perhaps you should learn to count before reporting Admin's for doing there job!~~. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be Number 2? Bbb23 helped out there, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

I've added the number 2 since this seems to be getting more attention than the clear examples of abuse of administrative position and harassment and rather uncivilly so by Davey. I would recommend crossing your edit out, Davey. As To AndyTheGrump, multiple users?! The edit was removed once for trivia and as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#guidance that's not even allowed. I should note that I worked on this edit with another user and was formerly thanked for the edit by another user. So please stop acting as though a whole bunch of users disagree with my version and I'm in some kind of minority. This is not even about the edit in question, it's about Bbb23's clear abuse and manipulation of his position which is totally unacceptable. Abuse of administrative position needs to be taken seriously. It's why numerous people leave and complain about this website and why, quite frankly, I'm on the verge of retiring with a series of complaints to spread even in the midst of several editors encouraging me to stay for valuable contributions. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The GWB/American Dad material had been added by you previously, and removed, some time ago. You added it again. Collect removed it. You added it again. Bbb23 removed it - though I'd have done the same. And no, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#guidance doesn't overrule policy regarding edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only reincorporated that edit once or twice so I'm uncertain what you're talking about Andy. Besides that, discussion of the edit should remain on the talkpage. I am here to discuss abuse of adminship by Bbb23.AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Andy. You are not even an admin. Also, please stop incorporating the Diva comment as you did here [29]. It is a personal attack. I've come here with a legitimate grievance with regards to abuse of adminship and harassment that I'd like to be taken seriously. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had discussed the edit on the talk page after Collect reverted it, per WP:BRD, there would have been nothing to discuss. And stop violating talk page policy by removing contributors comments. AndyTheGrump (talk)

What does Andy not being an admin have to do with anything? --Jayron32 02:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I wasn't being uncivil IMO, You're complaining about a highly respected admin & yet you can't count to 5 ....~~

As per User:Taroaldo I sense WP:DIVA. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apply WP:DIVA. Taroaldo ✉ 02:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why everyone complains about this site guys. When people come here with legitimate complaints, they are handled flippantly and with bias on basis of past friendships and how much you respect your editor friend. In effect, it clouds judgments and disallows editors from seeing the problematic shortcomings which is particularly an issue with regards to someone like Bbb23 who has admin tools. I encourage you all to look at posted complaints by many people and see that the site's number of users has been lowering each year because of complaints exactly as mine and how they are handled: the posted complaints by many people [30], [31], and [32]. Cut it with the highly respected admin business and attention to your friendships and get out of dodge if that's how you handle complaints and let a logical, unbiased mind handle complaint processes. That exact behavior is what frustrates people all to hell with this website and makes them want to leave and never come back. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. In contravention of talk page guidelines, AmericanDad86 has repeatedly removed comments in this thread made by other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He's digging himself a deeper hole, why stop him?--v/r - T P 03:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a "diva" and telling me I can't count is a personal attack and may be removed per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do objectively show 7 of 8 of the tell-tale diva signs. The lack of an entourage only means you're not a "truly successful" diva. Not an attack, but someone pointing out your room for improvement. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

This project does have some problems which cause people to leave but, in this case, my original recommendation (wherever it is) stands. Taroaldo ✉ 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking time out from my busy schedule to point out that AmericanDad left out something fairly important in "1st issue": Bbb let Canoe off the hook for BLP reasons. That "same breath" in which Canoe was let off, AmericanDad was blocked, yes, not just for edit-warring, but also for personal attacks and disruptive editing. In my opinion, this very wordy thread (though actually less verbose than the linked ANEW report, surprisingly) is itself disruptive. These kinds of jeremiads are in fact a reason for editors and admins to leave. AmericanDad might wanna watch for that boomerang. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is not doing themselves any favours by their actions here. WP:Boomerang is probably coming in to play here. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring

Sigh! Drmies is an admin I've had past negative dealings with here at Wikipedia in which he allowed another user to say "nigger" in a crude fashion and didn't penalize them when I reported it on the Administrative Noticeboards. Rather, he closed the discussion. Another user even came forward and accused him of racism. Anyways, to be honest guys, I knew beforehand that this complaint would be handled poorly even before I made it out and had been preparing for my retirement as soon as I felt the need to make a complaint against an admin because chances were everyone was just going to take the admin's side. It's the leading complaint about Wikipedia in general so I saw it coming. Complaints in general are handled poorly at Wikipedia so to think a complaint against an admin on an administrative noticeboard would be handled with any sort of unbiased logic is just wishful thinking. So thanks for confirming my suspicions as well as the many complaints made about this place.

Do what you will with this complaint but I'm going to go ahead and retire. As suspected, I came here with a legitimate complaint about an admin's harassment and abuse of tools and for no reason at all was greeted with a series of personal attacks and flippancy from the get-go. Even as evidenced by Davey's edit above which he has finally crossed out because he knows it was a personal attack, it is indeed because the admin in question has a collection of friends, at least here at the ANI noticeboards (which only makes sense considering the admin probably spends a lot of time here but it's the only place users can complain). I guess to dare question the mistreatment of users who have large sums of friends is a bad idea here at Wikipedia and their friends take it as an affront. I simply can't be involved in a system that works like this, it is pointless and infuriating.

I'm not into all the politics, biases of friends, editors popping up from eons ago because they're into grudges. As pointed out above, it has long been a shortcoming of this place that many have retired, never come back, and complained over. I find it entirely messed up that trying to complain about one problematic admin or editor simply leads up to gross displays of misconduct from several others, usually as a result of friendly biases or editors with vendettas (i.e. Inedible Hulk as shown in his above diff of a editing conflict we had eons ago).

Let the record show I have no vendetta. I sometimes come here to read the drama. Just happened to bump into you, and you happened to have an empty spot for a complaint. Your first one was from March, so I figured Number 2 should be from April. Great timing, nothing personal. Enjoy your break! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

These problems have long haunted this place and I simply no longer have the time nor the patience for it. With that, I will join the many who have left and spread their grievances with the site about the rest of the Internet in hopes that they will do away with this and/or come up with something better. Thank you. Good luck in your own experiences here the lot of you. But chances are the aforementioned problems will befall all of you at some point down the line if you edit here long enough and the shoe will be on the other foot. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mr. Zero

Any chance this can be deleted so I can put User:Launchballer/Mr. Zero there?--Laun chba ller 06:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not title it Mr. Zero (Keith Relf song), or similar? Taroaldo ✉ 07:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking! Mr. Zero (song) doesn't exist, and so "Keith Relf " (literally) is unnecessary.--Laun chba ller 08:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough justification for Mr. Freeze to retain the redirect. Your article would be better placed at Mr. Zero (song). — Scott • talk 09:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally speaking, the OP could have just tagged the redirect with {{db-move}}, but that point is moot now, as it has been contested. --64.85.214.47 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards