I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE EVEN HERE, BUT IF YOU POST OR EDIT THIS OR OTHER ARCHIVAL PAGES, YOU'LL BE REPORTED FOR VANDALISM.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Djathinkimacowboy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Prince Leopold, son of Queen Victoria, showing his left hand pinky rings in a typical stacking fashion, circa 1875.FDR as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 1913. Note, since he is recently married, he has his wedding band stacked beneath his father's Roosevelt Family signet ring. He would wear this stacked British-style configuration to the end of his life.
You are going to be blocked you from editing for a week if you don't lose the battleground attitude, stop edit warring, and stop slinging silly sock accusations around. Technically you've already violated 3RR, but as long as you don't revert anymore, I won't block for that. But you need to stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Understood, but frankly I'm tired of being the whipping boy. How do you know puppetry accusations are false? Did you investigate? Do you know for a fact? Also, are you looking at the history? No doubt one or both editors DVdm and Favonian simply came whinging to you and you decided to act. Let me tell you one thing: don't come threatening me with a week-long block on my user page. Don't come threatening me with empty and uncivil threats. This was a matter between me and DVdm, who likes to play dirty. That's all. This will go to ANI if you or either of those editors do this again.--Djathinkimacowboy
Some answers (somewhat stale, since event have overtaken them):
Yes, I know for a fact the puppetry accusations are false. Am I correct in remembering that you have been told before not to make unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry around? I'm pretty sure I remember this being a problem earlier in your editing career here.
Yes, I'm an admin.
No, nobody came whining to me.
No, your claims that I'm threatening you and being uncivil are not going to work.
I can pretty much 100% guarantee that a trip to ANI is not in your best interest.
For the record, my attitude is don't dish it out if you can't take it and then accuse people of battleground behaviour. You know, DVdm, I'm seeing a lot of WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, rotten-attitude language and what looks like a sock puppet relationship with Favonian. I'm getting fed up with this. Warning and discussion is fine. This hassle is below the belt. Now you've dragged in somebody to come and threaten me on your behalf. Look, we've posted back-and-forth about all this before, and I'm tired of it. You almost seem to be wikihounding and WP:stalking. You are rude and don't usually explain yourself, though I try to just trust what you say. But now, you have totally abused my trust. Be warned, if you keep accusing me as you have been, or if you and Favonian keep acting like sock puppets, I will open an ANI for the little good it will do. Enough.--Djathinkimacowboy 23:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I wish it known that I hereby apologise for the above post. I wish to do so now, since I'm not yet unblocked and cannot yet apologise directly to DVdm's talk page. Hopefully you're reading this, D. It seems you have taken the most harsh end of my harsh behaviours.--Djathinkimacowboy02:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You need to adjust your attitude. For an admin you are being extremely abusive. ANI "not in my best interest", is that it? So what is that? - looks like a threat to me. An unfair threat. I've already told all parties I will not revert or edit war anything, let them do what they want...but not to me. And what sock puppet accusations do you claim I have a record of making? Because I might have mentioned an unrelated suspicion months ago? This is outrageous. When I am able, I am certainly going to report your abusive block.--Djathinkimacowboy23:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
D, as a bystander who has often been somewhat bemused by those comments of yours that I have seen, I am actually surprised that you have gone this long before receiving your second block. I admit to only seeing bits of what goes on but, well, I thought that I was aggressive at times, but your stuff is way beyond mine. Take the block, have a think and perhaps just turn down the volume a notch? Even the summaries that accompany your regular clearing out of this talk page make me cringe a little sometimes. I am probably not the best person to say this but the phrase "make haste, slowly" comes to mind. Best wishes. Honest. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sitush, your good wishes are truly appreciated. I just noticed your post so I make haste to reply. Frankly I can't recall off the cuff if you and I have had good words or bad, in the past. Perhaps if I explained something, you'd understand a bit of my harsh posture: I'm tired of being followed and lectured by high-horse-riders. DVdm is one of those, and rarely takes time to explain anything calmly. When he is wrong, he quietly finds a way to make me go away- as occurred here. As that editor and I have a history, well, things went berserk this time round. But you know, I always generally admired DVdm. I think that fact went to DV's head and here we are. You mention edit summaries. Honestly, I can't make out what it is that makes you cringe. Is it honesty? I don't lie and don't leave summaries blank like many editors do. I also don't hurl accusations for the most part. It's funny: too many editors think the edit summary bar means the talk page. That is how edit warring begins. Again, thanks for stopping in and offering encouragement. Please don't jinx it anymore by saying "Wow, took long enough!" --Djathinkimacowboy
I reverted some recent vandalism on your page (an imposter, IIRC) and I watch the talk pages of some other contributors with whom you have had dealings of late (admins all, I think). It is late here and I am off to bed shortly; also, as I said above, I am far from perfect ... The provisos out of the way, I don't mind spending a few minutes tomorrow digging for a couple of examples to demo my perception of how you come across. How you take them is up to you but my offer would be in the interests of "constructive criticism" (a truly awful phrase, that is easily taken in the same manner as a sentence beginning "With all due respect ..."!) I may be wrong here, you know, but at the end of the day this project needs people with clue who can appreciate when to be firm, when to mollify, and when to let go. I spend a lot of my time in an extremely fractious area of the project that many admins appear reluctant to get involved in. I blow up from time to time and am frequently brusque - perhaps I am just very lucky.
You mention real life issues below. That's ok. Get them sorted, and good luck in doing so. Wikipedia is not going to disappear now that SOPA is on the backburner. RL affects us all but is something that we - ahem - have to live with. There is certainly more to life than this place. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Reply to user Sitush
Sitush, it is fine with me if you were to post examples of my past faux pas. It would be a learning experience for me- but only do it if you're prepared to explain what impression each reference makes. I will not argue the point. It's a real pity other editors close their eyes and ears... I am prepared to listen to honest criticism. One more thing: be careful not to take out of context. By all means, quote away, but not out of context. Cheers a lot for your good luck wishes. We'll be wanting it.--Djathinkimacowboy01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes rash actions toward editors like me force us to evade blocks just to get some words out.
Know this: I regret my bad behaviour. At least I admitted it somewhat openly. A vacation will do me good, I can't beg for your reconsideration of the block, but then, I think none of us behaved in an exemplary fashion.
What I wish to state here is that I do not believe the editors involved are sock puppets.
What I had actually said was they looked like it to me- there was no further accusation nor did I threaten them with action. Then again, they did not exactly comport themselves too well either, and I admit they angered me beyond control.
Much pain in my family life shoved me over the edge. My question to you is, What is everyone else's excuse? Editors as well as admins ought to step back and look carefully before leaping. That didn't happen here at all. As to the original question that was between me and DVdm, I was correct and DVdm was not. If I state that openly, that is not edit warring nor is it anything else. As for accusations of violating 3RR, they are empty as well.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Request appeal be considered. Request revision by another administrator. Though this situation was entirely my fault- due to my aggressive position regarding an edit- I feel that I have shown and continue to show general fairness in conflicts. I request a review because I do believe this block, or at least its length, is excessive. Naturally I reacted in anger after the block, but I have no intention of returning to stir up new problems. My main issue, and my anger, was with one editor only. My belief is that editor will cool off, then will feel more reasonable. If that is so, and with my assurances above, I think I can be trusted to have a week-long block at least reconsidered. If refused for good reason, I will not appeal further. May I address the reasons for the block as expressed to me by the administrator: "battleground approach, edit warring, baseless accusations of sockpuppetry after warning to stop". The 1st accusation is true, insofar as my approach to the situation was a 'battle-ready' approach. I regret this action. The 2nd accusation is understandable but I must protest it. I did not engage in any activity that differed in any way from any other editor in a similar situation. The 3rd accusation is based on an angry remark I made to two editors involved. They were angry, but I submit that these unacceptable angry expressions are not sock puppet "accusations" and I stopped immediately after I had expressed myself once each to the two editors. It seems rash in view of all this to impose a block of a week. I acknowledge my loss of temper and incivility; it is a struggle for me that I usually don't manage so well... but I try.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for your conduct, so your argument that the block is no longer necessary as the other editor "will cool off, then will feel more reasonable" isn't relevant - please see WP:NOTTHEM. I've restored the messages concerning this block which you removed before asking to be unblocked per the normal convention, and they seem to indicate that you haven't given up the confrontational attitude which led to the block. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Understood. Also I appreciate the restoration of the page, it should be there. I'll remove it when the block has expired. One thing: so sorry that since my grammar wasn't perfect enough I am accused of being confrontational. It appears WP does not like people who tell the truth. Whilst I work at being a better editor, I'll remember that being a better editor involves veiled points and hypocritical language.--Djathinkimacowboy20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
THe above & its associated edit summary, plus your own response to my offer of some 18 or so hours ago, are classic examples of what you need to change. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sitush, now you have lost me. It seems I just can't post a goddamned thing. Do you know what I see here? Entrapment. It's classic. An editor gets confronted, gets in trouble, defends himself and here come the admins and even people like you. You all yell, "You're confrontational!"- and then I get punished for being "confrontational". What it really is amounts to my trying to defend myself, and I'm damned no matter what. That is what I see. You, all of you, want to see "battleground" behaviour stop? Then stop making WP a battleground in the first place.--Djathinkimacowboy21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sitush comment. Reply to editor Sitush
Look, I am really sorry that you feel as if you are somehow being persecuted here. I can, however, assure you that this is not the case. In fact, your own words indicate this: "I have apologised to so many people here in the last 3 months it's all I seem to do". I remain pretty certain of the good faith in the things that you do but, well, sometimes we have to accept that those things (or the manner of them) are wrong. That sentence of yours is an indicator: if you find that you are having continually to apologise then you are most likely doing something wrong at a quite fundamental level. We all make mistakes. I doubt very much that anyone who has contributed here in the last few days would admit to always getting things right. What is frustrating to me (& probably to others, although obviously I cannot read their minds) is that you really do not seem to be understanding that we work as a community - if a fair few people are suggesting that you need to amend your tone, and you stand alone against that, then the chances are that they are correct. At least in the context of Wikipedia, at any rate. No-one who has contributed here over the last few days is "out to get you" but things are likely to deteriorate unless you can demonstrate some understanding. How about we start by dropping the combative edit summaries? That is an easy thing to do - just say "reply to X", "comment on Y" etc. K.I.S.S., at least for now.
I do not want to see any good faith contributor leave this project. That includes you. But you have to meet people halfway & sometimes accept that in the context of the project, you are 100% "wrong". Shit happens in life. The skill is in how you deal with it. I really do think that what ever the real life issues may be, perhaps it is best to sort those out as best you can because they could be affecting things here. We all have them, we all have to deal with them and, as I've said previously, WP will still be around. Again, I wish you well. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Your post is appreciated. My mind and my views are not in good order right now. Your post is, however, understood in full. My hope at this moment is not to incur anyone's wrath, which I have been doing with every post. So: my apologies for that. My plan is to rest (as I am able) during this week. As an act of respect I will be monitoring my talk page and replying to anyone who posts.--Djathinkimacowboy
A reply to Floquenbeam's earlier query
May I add something:
Am I correct in remembering that you have been told before not to make unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry around? I'm pretty sure I remember this being a problem earlier in your editing career here.
--this is from Floquenbeam. No, you are mistaken. Completely mistaken. I'd like my reply to you to be on the record. No sense in creating a false impression and I would be remiss in not responding directly to you.--Djathinkimacowboy
(edit conflict)While I have stricken an unconstructive post, let me say it contained a message I certainly deserved. The past is supposed to remain in the past, but since I have learned from what I have done and see what I'm doing wrong even now, I admit that I acted like I owned this whole place. Well, no more. Even someone like me can learn a new way!--Djathinkimacowboy20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Help required
Permission to strike and delete MikeWazowski's useless and taunting post above? Or is that not a kosher thing to do? It is clear why I want to strike that and I will strike my reply to him as well. Anyone may see those diffs, I don't care because it is well known. I do not welcome Mike or his posts, and of course he already knows this. "Just take the block and learn from it." And I get lectured for battleground thinking!--Djathinkimacowboy20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I am unwatching this talk page, as it appears clear nothing productive is going to happened here, and the continued bickering is getting old fast. I came within a button-push of fully protecting this page so nobody, Djathinkimacowboy or anyone else, could edit it, but since I suppose it isn't actually disrupting the encyclopedia itself, just averting my eyes from this dysfunction seems like a better idea.
If there's something I need to see, have someone ping me; I assume there are many here who will continue to watch the page.
One thought, though, before I go, in case you don't hear from me before the block expires. Either you understand you're being disruptive, or you don't. Either you understand that 80% of the fault in your numerous disputes lies with you, or you don't. If you do, then you've been given far too many chances, and if you don't stop, your next block will be indefinite. If you don't, then I think we've invested more than enough time trying to explain how to interact with others here, and unfortunately the time has come to stop trying. So, either way, you will either make a dramatic turnaround in the way you interact with others, or you will be quickly blocked from editing indefinitely. Thousands of editors manage, every day, to edit here with little or no conflict.
I guess there's a third possibility, and that's what I'm hoping for. It's that you know how to stop, but didn't think it was that big a deal before now. Now that you know it's a big deal, you'll stop. Here's hoping that it's option number three.
I guess there's a third possibility, and that's what I'm hoping for. It's that you know how to stop, but didn't think it was that big a deal before now. Now that you know it's a big deal, you'll stop. Here's hoping that it's option number three.
--and that is exactly what has occurred. Will everyone AGF whilst I struggle my way through my enlightenment? Floquenbeam, I regret the nasty posts that I originally placed here because I see things anew. I haven't stricken them from here so they will remind. Please do not think anything here has been unproductive! How do you think I became aware of what was hidden from me before?--Djathinkimacowboy21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What Wikipedia is- now I know!
Note: I seem to have accidentally deleted this very important statement....Now I have moved it to the bottom of the talk page. All of this got me thinking: Wikipedia is owned by someone, not by those of us who work and edit here. Therefore we are privileged, allowed, to edit and be members here by those who own it. We are guests. I realise I have been a terrible, disruptive party-crashing type of guest. Someone I would not allow into my home. It was perusing WP:OWN that suddenly opened my eyes. That one word, "own". And I saw that Wikipedia is owned by someone, we are allowed to be here and must follow the rules that are set here, as we would do anyplace else. Someone acting like I have done is being a rotten, inconsiderate guest, not contributing much, and trying to take over or stake a claim! Now I get it!!--Djathinkimacowboy20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
MISCELLANEOUS: Loose threads, 30 January 2012 to 27 February 2012
Barnstars
Just to be explicit, the Instructor's Barnstar was not meant as a replacement for, ripoff of or challenge to the Quasar Barnstar. The former's intent is to acknowledge great work on tools and documentation, the latter on policies and guidelines, and yes sometimes these can overlap, but really mine's intended for "geeky" not "political" work. I'm sorry that some people are trying to merge the concepts, but oh well. Wikipedia talk:Barnstars seems to be a little more political and argumentative than I expected. PS: I was not meaning to "diss" your barnstar, and am not sure why some want to push it to the user awards page with the "weird" barnstars. I don't think the Quasar name is very helpful, but simply renaming it (Policy Barnstar? Guidance Barnstar?) would make more sense than throwing out the award. Anyway, no offense intended. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 05:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, your post is much appreciated. I hadn't checked in on my talk page since yesterday. Really, I quite understand about the whole thing. As I've said all along, I am grateful that the stars can be sorted, even renamed and redesigned to fit the need. What I'd done previously was cry about the star not fitting my need. Believe me, there was no offense taken. I hope I won't forget to tell the two other involved parties the same thing: that I wish every success with the new awards. For the moment, I cannot think of something else for the Quasar and am welcoming of suggestions. However, I do think your two ideas ('Policy' or 'Guidance'--hmm, the Guidance Star, very romantic) are along the correct lines.--Djathinkimacowboy02:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
"Guidance" might work best, since it sounds general enough to refer to policies, guidelines, even influential essays, and procedures (ArbCom, RfA, etc.) The "business of helping make Wikipedia function smoothly", perhaps? PS: Thanks for the star! I've gotten two in one week, after not getting any for several years. Must suddenly be doing something right? Heh. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 04:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Guidance is good and as you describe its reason. Well, I always say barnstars are not awarded enough, and they are so merited 9 times out of 10.--Djathinkimacowboy10:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Birthstones
Hi Dja, I'm afraid I can't help you with your request... I try to keep as far from the File namespace as I can, to be honest. I have never been able to actually understand the criteria to add non-free content to our articles. I hope one of my talk page stalkers can help you, but perhaps it would be better to find another editor/admin who's more experienced than I am with images... I'm sorry. SalvioLet's talk about it!15:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey there Dja, and great to see you're back! I noticed you weren't around lately, but then everyone has wikibreaks. Well, keep up the good work, and best of luck ^^ benzband (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear from you. Always a pleasure, cheers.--Djathinkimacowboy
Sorry
Didn't mean to do the gender-bender on you - typo. I obviously have no idea about people's sexes unless their Wiki names are like User:Dougweller or something like that.
On the dispute resolution page, I tried to be as honest as I could and state what any third-party observer could obviously see by looking through the Talk section. If this has gotten to the resolution stage, any personal disagreements should be dispensed with for the greater good. We can always enjoy more drama in the future. ;-)
That's fine. I want to apologise for any offense that did splatter in your direction - you did, as I always said, fine work on the article. And I repeat my gratitude for your input at the DRN. My hope is you'll stick in some pence's worth at the newly opened notice board on this. In all honesty I appreciate your humour and good natured attitude all in all.--Djathinkimacowboy19:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposition for admin abuse noticeboard by User:Timeshifterfor ref. only
A noticeboard about rude, abusive, or policy-abusing admins
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to see a new noticeboard started. One for reporting and sanctioning rude and abusive admins. Rude, abusive, or policy-abusing admins are one reason the total number of active editors is steadily declining. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors for initial info, and then come back here for discussion.
That is not specific enough. We need a specific noticeboard solely for reporting and discussing rude and abusive admins. People should be encouraged to go there, and the title of the noticeboard must be clear. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong support. I haven't personally had interaction with abusive admins, but this seems to be a major problem this encyclopedia is facing. Abuses of administrator priviliges are wholly unacceptable and cannot be tolerated on this website. We must demand very high accountability from people in whom we vest the community's trust, and we must be able to know that our administrators need to remain mature and responsible, using their priviliges only to make this encyclopedia a more efficient and welcoming place. A noticeboard dedicated just for this purpose is entirely necessary. dci | TALK 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
About 95% of the "administrator abuse" complaints are on closer inspection actually cases of administrators being abused by rude editors. wp:ANI has its problems, but those are not specific to administrator abuse cases and would not be solved by splitting that out to a separate board. You can also mail arbcom about it if you prefer. Yoenit (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom. You are kidding, right? They are way too busy to handle the many cases of day-to-day abuse by admins. Many admins like to claim they are being abused whenever their abuse is pointed out to them. That is why we need an independent noticeboard whose sole purpose is to sort out what is really going on. Over time the admins and other participants of this dedicated noticeboard will be able to figure things out better. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I see, you are on a divine mission to defend the encyclopedia from windmills abusive administrators. Have fun. Yoenit (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
And it's comments like those that administrators face every day from abusive editors. Not you persay, but imagine how many times administrators get called names on a daily and constant basis because folks just don't like something or other? "Abuse" is so loosely thrown around when folks are angry without real appreciation or respect for the word.--v/r - TP14:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
re Yourit: 95% of the "administrator abuse" complaints are [...] administrators being abused by editors. Sure. And most airplane crashes are not caused by pilots, but by gravity force. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC) (me no admin)
Comment. Here are some links to previous discussions and articles concerning the declining number of active editors, and various reasons for it, including abusive admins:
One of Yoenit's ideas was to use WP:ANI. If you look here, and skim/skip to the discussion at the end, you will see that the people experienced with WP:ANI want more noticeboards, not less. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Y'see, Timeshifter — this thing is an excellent idea, but hopeless. Said noticeboard will either need enforcement or will simply be a private rant-'n-vent group. Enforcement can only be done by admins, and they won't act against their own group. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ02:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, they will act against their own, when the case is obvious enough. The problem is that they are far more lax with other Admins than with the average Editor. (Of course, they have good reason, as other Admins can turn around and block them, too.) What we really need is a recall process whereby common editors can remove abusive Admins on their own. There should also be an "equal punishment" standard for Admins. For example, if an Admin puts an inappropriate block on an Editor, they should then be blocked for just as long as the Editor was. This would quickly cut down on inappropriate blocks. StuRat (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you that Wikipedia has countless records of admins taking action against abuses by other admins. 05:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BD2412 (talk • contribs)
Support - While ANI is great for general incidents, there needs to be a place, with a closely followed archive, devoted specifically to reporting issues with administrators. Among the constant barrage of lugens, the occasional real administrator-caused issue is lost and forgotten in the current system. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢02:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. I think many good editors flee this project upon encountering administrators who fairly consistently but with subtlety and skill support what amount to violations of WP:NPOV. I think admins should be put under special scrutiny. I don't expect it to happen, but the suggestion above for a special noticeboard for reporting suspicions of improper activity on the part of administrators in my opinion is a very good idea. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
All kinds. Many people could give many examples. Some are rudeness, some are abuse, some are misunderstandings, some are abuses of admin power to get something done faster, some are poorly-implemented guidelines, some guidelines themselves are abusive because the guideline itself is vague. On and on. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Although I agree that the overall number of editors has declined the reasons for that are many, including but not limited too: As we create more sister wikis, the folks that live there will be less apt to edit the english one and edit the one for their native land; As the number of articles increases the number of obvious articles needing creation reduces, biting newby's makes them stay away, its too difficult to be an admin, too much fussing about little things, too hard to make changes, too many rules and guidelines, etc. These are all comments I have personally seen from people who leave and don't come back. This is not just limited to a couple of rude admins. --Kumioko (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Noticeboard about policy-abusing admins. Section break
Comment I must say I worry about the potential problems such a noticeboard could create. Call me a pessimist, but I think that if not strongly moderated, it could easily turn into something like WQA where disgruntled users go simply because an admin took action against them ie: "Admin X deleted my article/blocked me because of X, they are abusive". I do see the need for better dealing with admins that go off the rails, but am not quite sure if this is the way to do it. StevenZhangJoin the DR army!04:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It won't work unless other admins make it work. My personal experience when reporting violations of Wikipedia guidelines by admins is that a large percentage of the admins ignore the problem, go into defensive mode, and eventually insult me in one subtle way or another. Usually, but not always, a few admins step up and analyze the problem clinically and methodically according to the specifics of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Those are the admins holding Wikipedia together. They point out gently to the admin where they have not followed the guidelines, and they point out problems on my end if any. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If it's a valid concern, bring it in front of other admins. If other admins don't respond, bring it in front of ArbCom. If ArbCom doesn't respond, leave and find a better place to contribute to. Just, for the love of $DEITY, don't open a board so that every other common vandal can whine and clutter up the place. ZZArchtalk to me06:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Why not? Unless we are tossing the burden of proof out of the window too? Are you requesting admins to formally defend every single decision they make that some random editors walk by and say, "hey, I don't like that!" ZZArchtalk to me23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. There are indeed cases where some admins' behavior is inappropriate, but we don't need an entire noticeboard for it. WP:ANI will suffice, and indeed is a better location since it will get more eyes onto the situation. If an administrator is genuinely out of line, it's really not difficult to rouse the community about it. --Elonka06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANI is way too busy, and some there are trying to split it up. We have dozens of noticeboards. See Template:Noticeboard links. Not one is just for dealing with admins violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. What is more important than accountability of admins to Wikipedia guidelines and policies? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose There is no evidence that there are a sufficient number of cases involving policy-abusing admins to warrant a new noticeboard. The linked subpages of User:Timeshifter do not show a problem with policy-abusing admins. Those who follow WP:ANI and WP:WQA know that nearly all cases of someone claiming they received abuse from an admin are without merit. In a small number of cases (really small) an admin has "abused" an editor in the sense that after being goaded beyond human endurance, the admin used some crude language to tell a tendentious and unhelpful user that they should go away—we are dealing with humans, and just as editors should not be told to duck off, so admins should not have to tolerate IDIDNTHEARTHAT nonsense indefinitely. My alternative proposal (which also is not going to happen) would be for the establishment of a fast track process to remove unhelpful POV pushers because it is the latter who are causing quality editors to leave the project, not admins. Start with warnings that quickly escalate to topic bans, then blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Johnuniq says "we are dealing with humans". Sure, admins are human. But poor admins should be subject to scrutiny for shoddy behavior. Elonka says "WP:ANI will suffice, and indeed is a better location since it will get more eyes onto the situation." I think a noticeboard for potentially wayward administrators would have no shortage of eyes on it. Bus stop (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose I agree that rudeness and abuse is a big problem but admins are not the problem. We have WP:WQA for dealing with rudeness a bit amicably and WP:ANI when that doesn't work. Personally I don't know or care in most circumstances if people are admins or not and they normally use admin powers only for straightforward admin duties. WP:ANI deals with admin problems fine and there's no need to treat admins different from anybody else. If anything my main complaint about Wikipedia is that it doesn't have strong enough mechanisms to deal with content disputes effectively, if there were better mechanisms to cool them down and stop them being so disruptive then I believe a lot of the aggro would go. Attacking admins when there's no great problem there and not doing anything about content disputes which are a major problem and cause general aggro is just a recipe for total anarchy. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that that content disputes are a serious problem. See User:Timeshifter/Unresolved content disputes. But admins not following Wikipedia guidelines and policies is also a serious problem. In fact, from my observation the two problems are intimately connected in many cases. When I first started as an editor here in 2005 I went for a very long time without problems. Then I started editing more controversial topics, and then observed the anarchy that passes as content dispute resolution. Little or nothing has changed since 2005. In fact, in some ways it has gotten worse. The Wikimedia Foundation is busy with other things. Arbitrators are overwhelmed, and their purview is not content disputes anyway, though in fact nearly all conduct disputes they handle are rooted in content disputes. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The be all, and end all of Wikipedia. Alpha and omega, the ultimate wikipedian. Administrators are the role models all wikipedians should strive to emulate. They display superior intellect, outstanding article building abilities, captivating physical attractiveness and, above all, a stupendous and awe-inspiring modesty.
Support, but useless proposal. Admins don't turn in Admins ever. Editors loose a debate for this reason. First they have the WP:WHEEL argument to stay away from each other (=do not overturn another admins decision -- any more questions?), that is: they are not allowed to even criticize another admin. On top of this, as a group, they have no responsability. They are the soldier-guards for WikiPower. Think WiKapo. An editor cannot defend themselves agains an Arrogant Admin. No way. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, there is a problem with declining editor numbers. I fail to see how abusive admins are a significant part of that. There's a whole stack of candidate reasons for it: lack of visual editor, the shooting gallery at Special:NewPages, lack of friendly welcomes for users <100 edits (an explanation that research done by the WMF has endorsed), too many rules (I mean, really, a notability standard for civil aviation disasters?), the fact that unlike back in the day you can't just come and create the page 'Africa' and type "Africa is a continent" and hit save, BITEyness towards newbs (hence the experiments to improve Huggle notices etc.)—but abusive admins don't seem pretty high on that list. So the justification for this seems to me to be a load of codswallop. As for the issue of admin abuse? Yeah, there currently isn't a good way of handling it... not because there isn't a noticeboard for discussing administration issues (WP:AN, WP:ANI), but because when there actually is abuse of admin tools, it is a whole load of work to get them desysopped. But this proposal doesn't fix that problem, the actual problem. If there was a process for community desysopping or community reconfirmation, the venue wouldn't matter. If those were in place, then a discussion could take place on AN or ANI like we do for community bans. Unless a procedure is in place for acting on admin abuse, there's no point spinning a board off. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how abusive admins are a significant part of that - neither do I. But that does not prove that Admin Abuse does not exist, nor that it does not steer away editors. WP doesn't interview gone editors. Editors on the brink of leaving - how do you treat them? -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Your perception that "unlike back in the day you can't just come and create the page 'Africa' and type 'Africa is a continent' and hit save" is totally correct. You know why? Because pages like Africa have already been created a long time ago. New editors these days generally create things like "X is a singer" or "X is a writer" or "X is a guy". If we are saving all these pages like we saved Africa (because anyone with half a head knows that Africa is notable), this page would have become Messypedia. ZZArchtalk to me23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
...which is what I was saying. I wasn't making a moral judgment that the old days were better. The point is that the premise of this proposal seems to be that there are a declining number of editors. I don't buy that OMG rogue admins are actually a big cause of that. Yes, admins being abusive may cause some users to leave Wikipedia. But editor retention is a much bigger problem. And given that ther eare a whole string of reasons which are both more intuitively plausible (that maintaining a mature encyclopedia is less fun for most people than starting a fresh one, hence there are less people willing to do it, hence "editor decline!") and more evidentially warranted—the WMF research into new editor retention has found that the big dropoff is between 1 and 100 edits. We have the same number of editors turning up and making their first edit, but we somehow manage to drive them off sometime between 1 and 100 edits. The issue is finding ways of ensuring more editors make that first edit (hence work like the WP:AFT5) and those new editors are sufficiently motivated to continue editing past the initial unfamiliarity (hence some of the fluffy stuff like WikiLove and MoodBar/Special:FeedbackDashboard).
Given that both of these issues have almost no relation to the behaviour of admins, I fail to see why all the arguments about editor retention have any relevance to problematic behaviour by admins. Problematic behaviour by admins is far more likely to affect long-term editors, those who are likely to actually bump into the admin corps in a non-trivial way. Problematic behaviour by admins is a problem (obviously) and editor retention is a problem. But the whole thrust of this debate has been to blame one for the other. I'm wondering how long it will take until admins get the blame for bestiality and reality television too. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Tom Morris. I think you are in denial. Many new editors experience problems with admins ignoring abuse of those new editors. Many new editors experience problems with deleted articles, external links, lists, edit reversions, and much more. They get warnings galore. They ask questions on the article talk pages, and on the noticeboards. They are routinely belittled, ridiculed, cutely insulted, etc., oftentimes in threads with admins participating. Now the admins may not be the ones actually doing the belittling, ridiculing, condescending, etc.. But their participation in the thread without stopping those activities by others is part of the problem. And I have seen many admins doing the belittling, ridiculing, condescending, etc.. And also using WP:Edit warring and other cudgels to block only one side of editing disputes. Oftentimes without following WP:3RR standards. There is soooo much obvious unfairness that is ignored by admins, or actively encouraged by admins by their own actions. You can continue to talk about the problems of new editors, but you should stop ignoring this part of the problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Tom Morris. I am not trying to get admins desysopped. A noticeboard for discussing policy violations by admins would rarely need to recommend that. Nearly all admins will listen to a consensus from other admins. At least temporarily. The fact that a noticeboard for this exists would also be an incentive because the admin in question would know that if he/she repeats the policy violation it will come back up again there. People who watch this noticeboard will be more likely to notice such repetition because it will not be buried in the noise of the many topics covered by a board such as WP:ANI. And the admin noticeboard will have a searchable archive as do other noticeboards. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: This week there has been a lot of fruitful discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard and I hope those who have visited WP:ANI in the last 2-3 days may have noticed a difference. Whether or not a separate board for admin abuse comes about, if anyone is having problems right now with what they perceive as abuse by an administrator, please don't hesitate to bring it there. You will get help and it is simply not the case that admins do not criticise other admins. (Anyone who has been watching there will know this is so...!) Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)23:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You are playing it down to editors having experienced problems, like incidents. The issue at hand is: it is sytematic, and there is no remedy provided.
Oh, and by the way, nice to get so much attention from higher levels. Kim Dent-Brown, are you sent somehow to direct this off road? ~Deviation intended? Already 2-3 days at ANI and it is solved? Must be done by admins then. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
DePiep, I'm afraid I don't really understand most of your comment just now. I was simply offering AN/I as a venue until a decision is made about a separate board. But I don't think a systemic problem is going to be solved by a new board anyway. No, I'm not from a higher level and haven't been sent by anyone; this was a genuine offer of help. I'll undertake to assist anyone who wants to report a case of abuse of admin powers at AN or AN/I. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)23:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
A separate noticeboard for policy violations by admins would be a lot more useful in solving this problem. WP:ANI has to deal with much more than this problem. Why would you be against a separate noticeboard for this? I have been on Wikipedia since 2005 and I see many abusive admins on the noticeboards. A noticeboard to point out policy violations by admins would by its very nature see much less abuse by admins than most noticeboards. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Support ANI is ineffective, lets deal with this properly and with a sensible scope. That should mean we can keep discussions "on topic". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I do agree that some administrator abuse their position and powers; however i) they are not in the majority, and ii) a noticeboard about it is not the way to solve the problem. Firstly, although there will be cases of admin abuse, these cases are outweighed by the cases of falsely accused admin abuse. I have seen quite a few accusations of admin abuse; I have never seen an actual case of admin abuse. There may be a problem; if there is, it is much smaller that some editors will have us know. It seems to be a big problem, simply because people shout about it. It seems that those who are most enraged by an admin who deleted their article about their band are the ones likely to shout about it. We never hear the other side of the story because most admins are mature enough not to get into an argument, and instead ignore or calmly deal with such false accusations.
Secondly, we do have a process for dealing with problematic users. As we would with any other user, an RFC/U can be lodged against an administrator when there really are problems with power abuse. This is why I have always opposed term limits or recall procedures - they are unenforceable, compared to RFC/U. I agree that ANI is not a great place to raise a problem with an administrator: we all know that threads can turn very basty very quickly there. I don't see why a similar noticeboard which is just for complaining about administrators will be any better: if anything, it will attract the most disgruntled editors and become worse than ANI. We have a useful alternative in RFC/U, and we can do without creating another noticeboard for users to complain about admins who do a difficult but necessary job. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)14:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
ItsZippy. You wrote: "I have never seen an actual case of admin abuse." I noticed this on your user page: "I've been actively edited Wikipedia since August 2011." As I said earlier, I have been editing here since 2005. I went a long time without noticing admin problems. Then I started editing more controversial topics. Then I noticed many examples of admins violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. My experience is fairly common. The number of active editors has been actively declining for years. As far as I know there has been no poll of editors who have left as to the various reasons why they left. That would be very useful. Or we could continue to give lip service to the problem. I am trying to deal with one of the reasons some editors leave. I know for a fact that some editors are leaving due to this problem. I don't know the numbers though. But does it matter? We have dozens of noticeboards: Template:Noticeboard links. We can add another one for this important problem. And anyway, what is more important than maintaining Wikipedia guidelines and policies? Admins should set the highest example. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You are right - there are many editors here with more experience of Wikipedia than I have and, though I have never seen any administrator abuses, I do not doubt that there have been cases where administrators have abused their position and power. My perception of things is that there is less admin abuse than it seems there is. Of course, I do not have the numbers to hand, but without solid evidence that this is a real problem (you do not seem to have provided any diffs or links to examples of admin abuse), I cannot commit to or support anything. If we do not know the scale of abuse, beyond what we've experienced or heard through the grapevine, we cannot hope to produce a workable solution. I would suggest you spend some time gathering as much evidence as you can - doing that will allow us to make a decision based on the full facts of the matter, rather than what we just perceive to be happening. Until then, I maintain that the current procedure, using RFC/Us and ArmCom, is as sufficient for admins as it is for regular users. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
More facts are always good. But the facts are obvious to many editors. Note the support votes. Also, did you read all the discussions, articles, and pages I linked to. I doubt it. If you were more intellectually honest, in my opinion, you would change your vote to "I don't know." Or "Abstain." Because, as you say, you do not know the facts. The way you change your vote is to strike out "Oppose." Oppose.. Then type in something else. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose yes we have some problematic admins and some problematic behaviour by imperfect admins. Some of that behaviour, especially out of process deletions, contributes to our problems of editor retention and this place becoming a generally less welcoming place to be and makes it a less efficient place to write an encyclopaedia. We also have some effective ways to deal with that such as those admins talkpages, RFCs, ANI and Arbcom. The biggest weakness of those methods is that many editors hesitate to use them, and especially to use them at early stages. The second biggest weakness is that the process is complex, and a complainant has to get things raised in the right sequence, the classic mistake being to escalate too early and then see an RFC fail because you didn't first try to talk to the person you have a complaint against. Another noticeboard would not help the primary problem that people are hesitant to go through the vital first steps of discussing the problem with the admin concerned, and it would exacerbate the secondary problem by further complicating a complex process. So yes there is a problem, but this is not the way to solve it. ϢereSpielChequers12:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The processes you describe for dealing with admins is not working adequately. And those processes are, as you say, complex. Their complexity causes the hesitation to use them. Their lack of effectiveness in many cases exacerbates the hesitation to use them. A separate admin noticeboard is direct and simple. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)--Timeshifter (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The current processes are complex and imperfect, adding another noticeboard would neither simplify things nor improve them. Any such noticeboard would be only an indirect way to resolve things, the problems resolved successfully would continue to be those where editors go direct to the admin's talkpage or where that fails, the cases where Arbcom desysops or otherwise circumscribes an admin. To persuade people to support such a noticeboard you need to make the case for the added complexity of an additional step that would sit somewhere between talking to the admin and taking them to Arbcom. How exactly that fits in beside ANI and RFCs would be hard to define and would inevitably create complexity. ϢereSpielChequers00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Going to an admin's talk page is oftentimes a waste of time. What then? There is nothing simpler at that point than going to a noticeboard specifically for dealing with the problem of violations of guidelines by admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The current situation is complex, but still simpler than if such a noticeboard was introduced. If you introduced a dedicated noticeboard then the risk is that people going to AN/I or filing RFCs would be told they'd gone to the wrong place and they needed to go to this new noticeboard. You then have to decide how much discussion is required at such a noticeboard before you can escalate matters to an RFC/U. Remember when you have a complex system even a relatively simple looking addition can have multiple complexities. ϢereSpielChequers13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You seem to like the word "complex". There is nothing complex about a noticeboard for problem admins. Most problems can be dealt with there. Admins can be blocked there. Admins can be warned there. Problem solved. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for all the discussion. I see that some people get it, and some don't. Many of those that oppose a separate noticeboard seem to think that the current methods for dealing with admin problems are adequate, regardless of the scale of the admin problem. If those methods were adequate, then why the many support votes? Others that oppose the noticeboard do not see much of a problem with admins. I ask them, did you read all the discussions, articles, and pages I linked to? If you don't see the problem, but others do, then should you not seek more info first before voting either way? Those that have been around here awhile, see the problem, but oppose a separate noticeboard; I do not see that you have proposed any other realistic solutions. You are dreaming if you think WP:ANI, WP:Arbcom, etc. can handle the problem. They haven't so far. We may not know the scale of this admin problem and how much it helps cause the continuing loss of active editors. But as the saying goes "a fish rots from the head down." If we can't fully hold admins accountable, maybe Wikipedia is paralleling the problems in banking regulation and social inequality in general. In any case I have made some efforts to "Occupy" the Village Pump for awhile since I am no longer really actively editing Wikipedia articles. I am part of the 99% who aren't admins. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Question Is there anything above that links to an example of a problem? Do you have any evidence that there is a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support: per ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ and Bus stop. Though I've not seen such abuse, but the above comments show that this would help. --lTopGunl (talk)11:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
And now that I've seen such violations personally, I'll reiterate the need for one to deal with the issues where there's no bias in favour of admins. --lTopGunl (talk)01:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose While admins do sometimes become abusive, those incidents are few and far between. ANI and ArbCom are the best place to go to; a new noticeboard won't solve anything, it just shuffles the problem to a new page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite14:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, TS, you're really not helping your proposal by comparing yourself to the Occupy movement. There is no "social inequality" here, just people who disagree on editing a web site. You are not oppressed, and implying that admins are akin to corrupt bankers is appalling. Finally, saying that those who believe this is being adequately handled by the current system "are dreaming if you think WP:ANI, WP:Arbcom, etc. can handle the problem" is condescending. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite14:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It is not condescending, because it is accurate. I did a lot of editing of the Occupy articles a few months ago. And your understanding of the Occupy movement is appalling. Bankers are just doing their jobs for the most part, which is to make as much money as they can within the law. Few have been indicted for crimes, because few have committed crimes. The laws are the problem. They are lousy laws, or vague, or inadequate. Just like some of the inadequate and arbitrary laws here at Wikipedia. Such as WP:Edit war. Many admins are stretching the guidelines and wikilawyering to the limit of the guidelines and beyond. They get away with it many times because there is no simple and direct way to bring up violations of guidelines by admins to one single place. The 99% of us who are not admins can not compete with the crony adminism (kind of like "crony capitalism") and the Alice in Wonderland nature of the Byzantine bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's problem is less of a problem with the quidelines themselves than with the enforcement of those guidelines. All bureaucracies and governments are susceptible to this problem of entrenched authority, stagnation, transparency, accountability, and inequality. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please try to refrain from using words which will trigger vandalism alerts if you can. It would make our job much easier. Thanks!Jobberone (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The users who are empowered to deal with admin abuse are other admins and Arbcom. We currently have methods for alerting both groups to an admin abuse issue; these are ANI and the arbcom-l mailing list. What would this new noticeboard do to improve that communication? Yunshui雲水14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It would focus more attention concerning problems with admins in one centralized location. More would be learned about the scale of problems. Other admins would learn by watching what happens here. Admins and average editors would know that there is accountability in one place. Direct and simple. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Support IMO, we have a problem at Wikipedia of Somalia-style warlords. I don't know that this proposal is the best, or even a good solution, but it is better than ignoring the problem. Perhaps it should have a six-month trial period. Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Strongly Support: This is an excellent idea. This is what I call improving Wikipedia. It is high time a specific mechanism of accountability be in place for admins.ANI simply isn't enough, is too general and sometimes becomes a Punch-and-Judy show. I think an admin complaint board would be just the opposite precisely because it isn't ANI. Why not put forth this idea elsewhere? It is an excellent policy idea, and I think this village pump is something of a joke sometimes.--Djathinkimacowboy14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - Although I support the idea and in addition to my comments earlier in the discussion this endeavor is unlikely to succeed. In order for anything to happen in result of a discussion about an admin, an admin or beauracrat would have to take action to do anything and they are unlikely do to so. Its like the current situation in the US Congress to hold congressman accountable for insider trading. It would work against them so there not going to support it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, IMO, putting another layer over ANI (which... let's face it... would be resorted to in a j'accuse manner, WOULD be no different from having a special court to try police officers in for doing their jobs, instead of the common courts. Oh, and the one doing the accusing would of course have their ANI put on hold until the thread on the admin is concluded. Holy Byzantinism Batman! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Oh come now, Markvs88. This proposal doesn't "put another layer over ANI". And I don't see any j'accuse taint present in a complaint that has supporting diffs- which everything ought to have. To compare the proposition to a special police court in which to try police officers is misleading. The proposal is, in fact, something the police already have, and it works fairly well: Internal Affairs. This proposal is an Internal Affairs for Wikipedia Administrators. That strikes you as wrong? Let me point out that it is the citizen who generally initiates what will become an IA investigation- it occurs when citizens complain about what the police are doing wrong, not just when one cop gets another cop in trouble.--Djathinkimacowboy16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Markvs88. And what is wrong with J'accuse? That is a proud moment in history. Emile Zola's remains were laid to rest in the Panthéon in Paris. He is a hero. Whose side are you on? Alfred Dreyfus was railroaded by "admins" in the military. Are you on the side of secret courts? I am opposed to closed noticeboards. I am simply for another open noticeboard strictly for dealing with admins problems. And no special rules different from any other noticeboard. Open noticeboards and open media. Alfred Dreyfus was liberated eventually because of the court of public opinion and public discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Djathinkimacowboy: It doesn't? Here's the deal: if you want to consider the IA route, will this board be open to all editors or to just Admins and those invovled in the incident? If the former, it is another layer of ANI. If the latter, then it still forks the resolution process, slowing down whatever issue is at hand. I really don't see how this would do anything that ANI already does not.
Timeshifter: Yes, Zola is a hero, etc. My point is that while he took on the establishment, he did it in public view and in existing courts. The founding of this seperate board would IMO engender even the most trivial things to be taken to the "Supreme Court". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Your earlier query, Markvs88, was not answered, sorry. I suppose you can read, and see that Timeshifter wants something where anyone can go and make their case against an admin for very specific reasons. So, yes, any editor can go, bearing in mind an admin is nothing but an editor with a few extra and mostly undeserved buttons. This whole new board forces others- mainly admins probably, but also respected editors, anyone- to review and respond to the cases raised there. Of course I have to ask, what does it matter anyway if people ignore it like they ignore everything else here?--Djathinkimacowboy01:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Noticeboard about problem admins. Section break
Comment.Groupthink can be a big problem. That is one reason I want a separate noticeboard for admin problems. Groupthink, when it happens, will be more obvious to many people watching such a dedicated noticeboard. Therefore, there will be less and less of the kneejerk "admins-rarely-do-wrong" groupthink on a dedicated noticeboard over time. Also, over time as problems are resolved, it will become obvious that admin problems are not being overlooked. Since it is all out in the open, the wider audience reading the noticeboard will have an overall moderating effect. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: It must also be indicated that if Timeshifter succeeds in this, it may actually help supplement an ANI (should the need arise). In this way the average editor all the way up to disagreeing admins would have the bare bones of their difficulties out in the open. This might distill a conversation or discussion in a good way. A new layer over ANI?- perhaps, but it is a necessary one. May I also say, I am unhappy with the way past discussions are archived and I hope Timeshifter will consider a humble addition that there be some clearer way of archiving closed/resolved discussions on his new board.--Djathinkimacowboy01:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Support I haven't personally dealt with abusive admins on Wikipedia, but I have on forums elsewhere on the internet, and it's an unpleasant experience. Luckily, Wikipedia is a very big organization that has the capacity to double-check possibly abusive admins, while on another website, the admin usually gets to do whatever he/she wants. While WP:ANI is used for this purpose currently, I am always in support of organizing large pages into reasonable categories. I see two downsides, however. The first is the number of users that will report administrators for "abuse", due to administrative action being taken that is actually fully appropriate. The second is that administrators will, naturally, be biased towards the accused admin's point-of-view, making the user's job harder or even impossible. The second issue could be solved by giving equal weight to non-admin voters, and also including bureaucrats. The first issue, however, will require much sifting through bad complaints by voters.--YutsiTalk/Contributions16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yutsi, your points are good. I especially like the point you made about admins favouring admins automatically. That is why we need this new board and need full participation- about which you also made good points. In reply to your concerns, I think the magic term is diffs.--Djathinkimacowboy16:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, I wanted to make a suggestion: could we have another sec. break here? This is getting impossible to edit easily- and I know I've done my share to make that a pain in the neck. Can we initiate a new sec. break?--Djathinkimacowboy16:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yutsi. No matter how the individual complaints are resolved on the admin noticeboard, one good thing about the noticeboard is that it will make it much easier for observers to notice patterns concerning problem admins. Right now that is difficult because those patterns are buried at WP:ANI in the many other non-admin-related problems. The archives at the admin noticeboard will be an invaluable tool for sorting out priority problems, and dealing with them more effectively. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment/Oppose I've seen a lot of commentary above about "there are many problematic admins" and equivalent arguments. If I were reading over this like an AfD, I'd dismiss those as vague waves. If I were to see some hard evidence of what you're talking about (a whole string of RfCs/ArbCom cases, lots of valid ANI threads about abusive admins, or some case studies presented here), then I'd think differently, but I really can't say I do. And Timeshifter, I didn't fully appreciate this before becoming an admin myself, but almost anytime you have to make a judgment call about something someone will scream at you. I've had the pleasure of wading through the morass of Indian caste articles using my admin tools, and there are innumerable people there who think I'm an evil, colonialist-minded Westerner trying to reimpose British hegemony on India (I'm from New England, not the UK, so the irony isn't lost on me); were they to find out about such a noticeboard, I'd have to spend half my time warding off those people. I'm willing to deal with people making baseless accusations about me on individual article and user talkpages, but I'm not willing to provide people with a forum which will help them launch their attacks and bias people against me (the "if there's smoke, there's fire" mentality). I have enough going against me in those problem areas without that already. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's the problem in a nutshell, right? Admins are always right. Let's all go home. Move along. Nothing to see here.... --Timeshifter (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice straw man argument, but none of us are perfect; after all, besides a few adminbots we're all humans. My problem is that far too often, complaints of admin abuse fall firmly under the remit of point 37, and do nothing but waste our time. Think about it from our perspective for a moment; why would we want every disgruntled user who's angry about something we did running to a centralized forum and screaming "ABUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", hoping that if they sling enough mud something will stick? I've never once blocked, or threatened to block, someone who simply asked me what I was doing, and I've always been willing to revisit my actions; I suspect that's the case for the vast majority of admins. We're expected to be communicative, and ArbCom will desysop admins who aren't. To use my Indian caste example, I have to be very heavy-handed to keep things under control, and people have asked me what I was doing; when I get a chance to respond and give them the full picture, they understand. But if people immediately run in and scream "AN ADMIN BLOCKED ME FOR ADDING CORRECT INFORMATION!!" people jump to conclusions (in that topic, a lot of things that appear to meet WP:RS don't, it takes a long time to learn to distinguish between those and actual reliable sources) and start dragging my name through the mud before I can even explain the situation. We don't need to make it easier for people to launch those kinds of attacks on us; infinite patience is not one of the tools granted upon adminship, and we have our limits too. And once again, you haven't provided any solid, hard evidence for your position; if you can show it to me, I'll gladly reconsider. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
So now you are just trolling well reasoned oppose comments. If you have truly sunk as low as your latest comments suggest, would you mind moving to wikipedia review? There you are free to whine about abusive admins all day without having to present things like evidence. Yoenit (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe one of your edit summaries in this thread was "not in touch with reality". See you at Wikipedia Review along with all editors that point out admins violating Wikipedia guidelines. "The Blade of the Northern Lights" sounded depressed. I injected some humor. I even took your previous trolling with humor. Try it sometimes. I am admin too (not at Wikipedia), and I recommend it. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: There is no point trying to patch up the messes that inevitably result from the way Wikipedia gives unsuitable people the power to jerk round and block the people who actually write the encyclopedia. It is the very concept of an "administrator" on Wikipedia that is fundamentally flawed. Any pretenses at "reform", such as the farcical Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011, involve protective circles of incumbent administrators who systematically suffocate any attempts to address the real issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
And once again, you were going to show me some hard evidence of that? If you do, I may reconsider, but all I've seen are dogmatic waves with vague buzzwords. Please, by all means back up your position with something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Who are you talking to, Blade? I have no idea what you mean by "once again, you were going to show me some hard evidence of that". I've never talked to you before. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Epipelagic. So you actually support the goal, but think a separate noticeboard will not help? Would it not be better than the current situation? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Many individual admins behave with honour and decency, but the collective behaviour of our admins as a body is another matter. I do not believe natural justice can prevail now on Wikipedia until systemic flaws in the way adminship is structured are addressed. Setting up a board to slap band-aids on unnecessary gaping wounds is just bypassing the real issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You did not answer my specific question. And what is that saying that talks about perfection getting in the way of the pragmatic. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we both have the same goals, Timeshifter, and I agree it's silly to expect perfection. But is trying to prop the current ghastly system up really the best way to going about it? I think your board would be doing just that, and it would be better to rebuild the admin system in a more rational and workable way. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I find your opposition, Epipelagic, more discouraging than most of the other opposition here. Much of the opposition here is typical fanboy groupthink one sees all over the web. Kneejerk opposition to anything that questions the status quo. But you see the problem, and yet oppose incremental improvements. Wikipedia is becoming mediocre in many ways lately. And even worse, now I see things falling into ideological nonthink. Which is even worse than groupthink. I find the Commons much more interesting lately. Also, other stuff on the web has more potential. The brains are leaving Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree Wikipedia is trying to lurch along weighed down by a lot of unnecessary muck, and many users have kneejerk fears which prevent them from seeing that muck for what it is. But Nick-D below makes an important point. If your board was set up in the current mess, then sound and fury from malcontents using the board inappropriately would just make things worse. It would just add to the silly dramah and become an incremental deterioration. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
People are already posting such stuff in WP:ANI. The difference is that with my proposal the admin-related stuff will go to a different noticeboard. So how is that a deterioration? It may even improve the level of discourse since it is more focused. But drama is not a reason to get rid of noticeboards. Following that logic we should get rid of all noticeboards. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
So instead of pushing for half-hearted measures like this, which may just make the current system even more byzantine and unworkable, why not push for proper reform, a rethinking from the ground up of how this site should be administered. The workable solutions seem quite clear to me, though they will be bitterly opposed by many of the entrenched incumbents. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Any reform concerning administration of the site will still leave people who need to be held accountable. A separate noticeboard is direct, not Byzantine, accountability. There is no interference between our goals. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:ANI is an unpleasant place, destructive to Wikipedia, where people mostly try to bury hatchets in each other. The same would happen on your board. We agree on the goals. I just think the problem should be tackled from the opposite end. With a more carefully thought out admin structure, many of these dramas wouldn't arise. The worst outcome of your solution might be that it partially succeeds. Then the real issues might never be addressed. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason the problem can not be approached from both ends. Following your logic I should not support your end of the issue because it may only partially succeed and the real issue of truly adequate oversight might never be fully addressed. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose as per Epipelagic, although I wouldn't quite express it in the way that he has. The fundamental problem is the historically lazy loading up of administrators with every new right invented or ever to be invented, without any effective way to remove them – those rights or those administrators. MalleusFatuorum02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Malleus. So you actually support the goal, but think a separate noticeboard will not help? Would it not be better than the current situation? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Support: The ANI is a perfect example of conflict of interest, and the fox guarding the henhouse. Administrators have a collective interest in circling the wagons and showing solidarity against sanctions as a general rule. No matter how well-meaning Admins may be, they are in a situation which structurally induces them to make a biased judgment in matters like these. I think anyone would agree with one of the tenets of those who oppose this, that most administrators are good, and most do a good job. However, in the same way, while I think most policemen are good, there are bad apples, and I wouldn't trust the management of internal affairs to the people in the same department who clock in with those bad apples day to day, eat lunch with them, have put their life on the line together with them, etc. etc. It's impossible to keep a clear head in an environment with a high level of group cohesiveness (which exists for many of the most frequent contributors to Wikipedia, of which admins are an even more cohesive subset group). You can't have the fox guarding the hen house. You need people who don't have collective interest at stake. To put this all in plain language: Users don't have any incentives in tearing down all the admins. However, Administrators have a strong incentive in keeping up all the admins, lest one of the many administrators they know and like be the next one to be shamed. But it's more than that - their group cohesiveness also makes it hard for them to see it when another administrator is at fault. It's a matter of structural bias which even the most wise, impartiality-loving individual can't guarantee their immunity from. --Monk of the highest order(t)04:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
So what's to prevent the "foxes" from taking over the new noticeboard, shutting down any discussions they feel would put their buddies in a bad light? 28bytes (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Sunshine. Kind of like how sunshine laws help keep governments and government officials in line. This is a noticeboard dedicated to problem admins. It would be harder to cover up admin problems. Plus the archives would be invaluable. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose This could serve as a clubhouse of sorts for disruptive trolls who enjoy playing 'whack an admin', but would not actually be helpful for solving problems and duplicates several existing forums. Admins tend to be pretty self-critical of each other, and ArbCom seems to be on the warpath against admins who make mistakes at the moment, so this is totally unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
When admins come together to make life hard for another admin, it is usually because that admin has offended against the sanctity of adminship itself. This has nothing to do with correcting injustices committed against powerless content editors. And talk about "disruptive trolls who enjoy playing 'whack an admin'" is the usual red herring produced by admins who want to draw attention away from the actual issue here. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Nick-D. Arbcom is a small group of people that can not possibly deal with all admin problems. A separate noticeboard would have far more participants over time. I believe a reasonable percentage of admins will take this noticeboard very seriously and do their best to moderate this noticeboard, and to be fair. Many admins are not "self-critical of each other". That is why a dedicated noticeboard will help. It will be much more obvious when attempts are made to bury problems. Therefore the sunshine will make it far easier to solve problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You talk about "the real issue", but you can't seem to come up with any concrete evidence of it. How about detailing exactly what your problem with admins is, using things like diffs and threads to back it up. Think of it like writing an article with reliable sources; if you want to convince me that your position is correct, you need to give examples to prove your assertions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, who are you trying to patronise Blade? You don't make yourself clear. If you are patronising me, the issues underlying the dysfunction admin system are crystal clear and have been discussed exhaustively in many places over many years. The arguments have always been systematically shunted aside by admins protecting admin privileges. You will find current accounts fully detailed in the recent histories of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. I'm surprised you are expressing opinions here when you apparently haven't studied and thought about this material. A current restatement of the issues was made by an admin just a few hours ago. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not patronizing you, I'm trying to be clear; apparently I wasn't. And funny you complain about being patronized given your subsequent comment regarding what you think I know. I'll try again, more concisely. I'd view complaints of admin abuse as more valid if people were pointing to specific instances where admins are being abusive; so far, all I've seen are general vague comments about "admin culture" without any specific instances of said problems being pointed to. If it's really that big a problem, I'd expect people to be able to give demonstrative examples of the problem in action; I hope this is clearer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear, now you are shifting your position. You asked about the "real issues", and I gave you the links to them. Now you want something quite different. If you haven't come across suitable examples of admin abuse, I suggest you look at some of the admin notice boards and referrals for comment. You must know very well that listing specific examples here would just open a Pandora's box and set admins scrambling for defensive positions. Why would you advocate such an utterly inappropriate approach unless your aim is just to torpedo any useful discussion here. Makes me wonder if perhaps you are an admin yourself, though you don't appear to be from your user page. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
First and foremost, I sincerely apologize if it feels like I'm setting a moving target; that's on me for lacking clarity. See here. I work in some of the most toxic places here (Indian caste articles, AE, and the like), so I'm especially prone to making people unhappy with me. I certainly know of some isolated instances of admins doing something crazy, but far too often I find point 37 applies; this is my main issue. I had written a longer version of this, but I realized it basically duplicated my comment above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Admins certainly need empowering to deal with genuinely toxic situations, but that has nothing to do with unaware admins, who don't know what they are doing, running amuck and leaving a trail of wreckage amongst the small group who build Wikipedia. If you want, I'll email you some particularly nasty examples, but they are historic and there is nothing to be gained by revisiting them on community notice boards. I apologize for getting shirty, but in this context, when you invoke point 37, as you just did above, the one-eyed shibboleth about admin abuse being abuse of admins, you are again refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of these very real issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I could have done a better job acknowledging the legitimacy of your comments; after all, ArbCom has recently desysopped 2 admins who were abusing their tools, so it's not without merit that you bring up admin abuse. I suppose it might help me a bit to step back from some of these areas for a while, maybe it will help get a better perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, as there is a problem, it will be dealt with through the current mechanisms. If they're broken, then this will be too. Nothing about this proposal specifically seems to be uniquely different from the current strategy. Aslbsl (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Admin problems are not being adequately dealt with by the current mechanism. A separate noticeboard focuses the mind. The fact of its existence will make it unique. Also, its existence will show that Wikipedia cares a lot about these problems regardless of the scale of the problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I suppose it might end up as a "honeypot" of sorts, and whilst that would, indeed, make it easier to identify users who habitually accuse admins of abuse, I don't think the other drawbacks identified by opposers here are overcome by that minor usefulness. To try to be a little more serious: maybe there is a problem that needs addressing, but just starting a new drama board is not a cure. Those already opposing have explained more adequately than I can without repeating them - Nick-D in particular. Begoontalk03:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Well, I tried. There are more articles, less editors, and many low-quality articles. Many editors have left. The number one reason in my opinion is unresolved content disputes. The number 2 reason, and it often occurs in conjunction with the number one reason, is unchecked abuse by admins (what this Village Pump discusssion is about). And now I see that it is unlikely to be addressed as long as the Wikipedia Village Pumps are overrun by fanboys (and groupthink) that refuse to acknowledge other people's points (remember WP:NPOV?). The previous sections had many more supports, so maybe there is hope in the long run, but in the meantime many more active editors will leave. Some of the last few opposes cite the oppose from Nick-D, but ignore the long thread concerning Nick-D's comment. Nick-D only wrote 2 sentences total so far. Nick-D posted once and ran. Groupthink has now devolved into nonthink. Editors are leaving for various reasons. Many editors have been driven away. See User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. All the problems below are admin-related. Either abuse by admins, or admins not doing their jobs.
While fanboys and groupthink are two reasons why this proposal has not received consensus support, a third reason might be that the majority of users disagree with you that the problem exists, Timeshifter. A fourth reason might be that people agree there is a problem, but disagree that a new noticeboard is the solution. Either way I think you've done your best but it looks like the time is not ripe for this proposal at the moment. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well here's a fresh idea: just do it. That is, simply create Wikipedia:Administrator abuse noticeboard and see if you can or cannot ride out the inevitable and immediate WP:MfD that follows. (You might want to file the MfD yourself immediately upon creation; if so, if should be neutrally worded e.g. "Should this entity be deleted, or not? Discuss.").
That is one way to get things done on Wikipedia, operating on the basis of the well-known principle "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission". This actually exploits (or, if you prefer, leverages) a characteristic of Wikipedia governance: consensus is required, which in practice usually means a supermajority. It's hard to get supermajorities in life, so it's hard to get consensus to do something, but it's also hard to get consensus to stop one from doing something. This is after all a wiki, and you can create whatever pages you want to.
(N.B.: I'm not saying I support the creation of this entity; I don't have a strong opinion yet, but might vote against it at the MfD after further consideration. But I don't know if it'd be good or bad (and neither does anyone else commenting here; we can just guess). I'm simply offering tactical advice.) Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems rather rude to say that I 'posted once and ran'. Is this really a good-faith, serious proposal to make things work better? If it is, attacking people who you disagree with is rather self-defeating. I stated my views, and didn't see the need to respond yesterday to the above people who posted comments in regards to them as others had already done so and the thread had moved onto other topics, and I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Support I wish I'd known about this proposal earlier. Admins do indeed band together to defend each other, especially at AN/I - they have considerable motivation to do so, since ability to get along, particularly with other admins and popular users, is an important part of success at RfA and since they can be punished for "wheel warring". An awful lot of them don't just scrutinize the record of someone who posts a complaint there, they give the impression of delighting in changing the focus to that person. The OP is right, harsh admins do a lot of damage to the project by driving away good editors. We need to retain both good long-term editors and potentially good new editors. In the past 24 hours I've seen another new person treated harshly by an admin and go from positive about Wikipedia to furious and swearing never to edit here again. Yes, admins are needed to defend the project against bad articles and bad edits and to point out policies to those, including me, who don't know them inside out. No, this does not equate to bullying, taunting, or destroying things that could have been saved. And we see in the Wikipedia admin corps a nasty demonstration both of power corrupting and of the attraction of "cop" positions for people who like bossing others around. If they are merely editors entrusted with mops and buckets, they need to be held accountable. Instead there is very much a power dynamic. A separate noticeboard is a good suggestion and might encourage admins who do care to respond to complaints there; I understand many currently avoid AN/I. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
As the original poster (OP) I believe that once a complaint reaches WP:ANI things have oftentimes gotten so bad that the damage and discouragement is already too far along. Some editors leave regardless of the outcome. At least with a separate admin noticeboard more problems might be dealt with at earlier stages. Admins will see and learn from other admins' problems what is better for Wikipedia. Groupthink might actually help in this situation. Admins might learn how to defuse situations earlier all over Wikipedia. If people get rewarded for proactive conflict resolution they do more of it. Admins can gently teach other admins at such a noticeboard. The goal is not to desysop admins but to educate each other about how to best, and most fairly, implement the Wikipedia guidelines. Both admins and people complaining about admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
New noticeboard proposal for proposing proposals of new noticeboards proposals.
I think this Village Pump (proposals) isn't adequately handling all the new noticeboards that need to be proposed. We should make another notice board, because that won't be just shuffling the problem about, it'll solve it. This new noticeboard somehow won't make the Byzantine bureaucracy of Wikipedia worse, because new users will still be able to post proposals for new noticeboards here and then be told that they're really supposed to post it in the noticeboard for proposing proposals of noticeboard proposals. I mean, if we had all the proposals in a central location (like vandalism at WP:AIV, incivility at WP:WQA, or issues requiring admin attention at WP:ANI), people have to pay attention to a few different pages, instead of having to search multiple pages, which makes things so much easier. As we all know and can plainly see, every post in this thread is a new noticeboard proposal, so it's obviously a huge problem. It's not like anyone can propose anything else thanks to how this board is structured. That's how we'll keep this site free from those damn monarchists and their Catholic church!
Many individual admins behave with honour and decency, but the collective behaviour of our admins as a body is another matter. I do not believe natural justice can prevail now on Wikipedia until systemic flaws in the way adminship is structured are addressed. Setting up a board to slap band-aids on unnecessary gaping wounds is just bypassing the real issues.
It seems you're on to something with that, E., but you also just stated the exact reason why Timeshifter has an excellent idea and it should be implemented. Timeshifter's idea is no "band-aid". As to the other lame objection that such a board would be a haven for trolls, show me the place there are no trolls! Finally, as for the idiotic calls for evidence, I don't think anyone needs evidence that admins are misbehaving. You are just trying to bog this down even further.—Djathinkimacowboy22:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose even if there was a need for some other mechanism to rein in abusive administrators this proposal wouldn't have much of a positive effect. ANI, for all its imperfections, does at least attract a wide audience. A noticeboard dedicated to (alleged) admin abuse would likely meet the same fate as the community sanction noticeboard: few users would participate and those who did would be a small group of regulars, probably those with some kind of grievance against administrators. The environment resulting from these conditions is not remotely productive, as the fate of the CSN demonstrates. Hut 8.523:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why you think there would be a lack of participation. Around 30 to 40% of the people in this discussion see the need to do something. A few of those don't think a noticeboard is the way to go. As I have said several times the purpose of an admin misconduct noticeboard is not to desysop admins. So it would be nothing like the community sanction noticeboard which many called "votes for banning". --Timeshifter (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
My point about the CSN wasn't that it was used for banning users but that it wasn't able to attract much of an audience. Most specialist forums do not get a very wide readership and what readership they do get tends to be from people with an interest in the topic. Sometimes that can be a good thing: if you post to the reliable sources noticeboard, for instance, it will be good if you get replies from people who have experience in reviewing sources. On the other hand, who is going to comment regularly at a noticeboard devoted to investigating complaints of admin abuse? People who dislike administrators in general or who think there is far too much admin abuse. "Review" of admin actions by such people isn't going to be very fair, useful or reflective of the community at large. If you still doubt that this would happen observe that the CSN (which had a much more important job) failed to attract much of an audience beyond a small group of regulars, which is one reason why it was closed. And I don't think that this noticeboard would be harmless: I wouldn't be at all surprised if discussions on it were used as evidence in RfCs, arbitration cases or even in reviews of specific admin actions. Hut 8.514:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Community sanctions noticeboard is not remotely as important as maintaining the quality of admin work. Organizations without accountability deteriorate in the quality of their work. Of course, an admin misconduct noticeboard will be watchlisted by people who have seen how admin misconduct can mess up the work of Wikipedia, and cause good editors to leave. You don't have to feel the brunt of admin misconduct to have seen how it effects others. All you have to do is to open your eyes and come out of groupthink.
Many admins will watchlist this noticeboard too. Are you calling them whiners, too. That is basically the line of thought you are coming from. That people who care about this issue are whiners who should be ignored. Even other admins. Ignoring the issue is basically what is happening now. Admin problems are buried in WP:ANI. Problem admins like it this way. It takes the spotlight off them. But a separate noticeboard and its archive would be a tool to observe past history too. If some admin misconduct is so egregious that it gets passed on from the noticeboard to WP:ArbCom how is that a problem? That fact that you seem to think that this is a problem indicates the current attitude of some of the groupthink concerning admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My 0RR 'probation'
Resuming old habits is a really bad idea
Djathinkimacowboy,
I'm not sure if you've forgotten our discussion from January, or decided to ignore it, or what, but please remember you're not a "regular" editor; you're basically on double secret probation. Edit warring, as you're doing on J. Edgar Hoover, especially the annoying practice of edit warring and at the same time telling the other editor not to edit war, is going back to old habits that you assured me were no longer going to occur. This is not a minor problem, it is a major problem. Therefore, in lieu of blocking you, I'm putting you on a WP:0RR restriction; you are not to revert anyone, anywhere, except for obvious vandalism. For, let's say, one month. If you fail to follow this, then you will be blocked for a month. If you disagree with this, feel free to bring it up for review, but my suspicion is that you'll find everyone else as tired of the way you escalate disagreements as I am.
To head off the obvious question "why isn't Alarbus being put on 0RR?", because he does not have the history of disruption that you do.
Furthermore, I have taken a brief look at Alarbus' recent contributions and found no personal attacks by Alarbus. You can do one of two things; stop accusing people of making personal attacks against you, or give me a recent diff by Alarbus with a personal attack against you in it. Be aware, however, that if there is no personal attack in the diff, then I'm going to block you for resuming the same kind of argue-at-all-costs-throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-if-anything-sticks-battleground attitude that you were blocked for in January.
As far as I know, you've had a much better editing experience the last month or so. Please do not resume the old habits, or you won't be here long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply: I agree with your evaluation and your decision. It seems to me to be more than fair. The situation you reference was line-crossing on my part, and I am appreciative that you find this action toward me more suitable than blocking me indefinitely. Even moreso because I know you believe I deserve to be indefblocked for my past attitude. You have good reason to feel that way. So I accept your decision and your action. I am only sorry that you seemed to expect some sort of 'hollering' or retaliatory rhetoric from me. I can see that what I did was excessive; I would not have responded in any way other than this.
Ref.: If you do not object...The following is for my reference and for the rule to be handy and before me here.—Djathinkimacowboy
"Other revert rules"--(shortcuts: WP:0RR, WP:1RR): Additional restrictions on reverting are sometimes imposed on particular editors and/or particular pages, by ArbCom or under administrator enforcement, or by the community (see Editing restrictions and General sanctions). These may be phrased using such terms as 1RR ("one-revert rule") or 0RR ("zero-revert rule"). A "one-revert rule" is often analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". Often there is also a requirement to discuss each of the reversions on the talk page, and sometimes the words "24-hour period" are also replaced by "1 week". A zero-revert rule means a complete prohibition on reverts (as defined for the purposes of the three-revert rule). Editors can also voluntarily agree to abide by a stricter standard on reverting such as 1RR or 0RR, either in response to problems in a particular area, or as a general editing philosophy. For more details, see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.
Of course I have no objection to that. Sorry if it looked like I was assuming the worst; I'll work on being more optimistic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for that- and another honest 'cheers' for the chance. Naturally optimism is good, but as I tried to imply, you have good reason not to feel optimism toward me. Oh, I hope you do not mind that I reverted myself at J. Edgar Hoover at A.'s suggestion. I felt it was the least I could do. I hope it makes it up to A. a bit as well.—Djathinkimacowboy16:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, if you come and visit again, I have a serious query: in my 0RR status... how do I actually know whether I'm violating that if I am merely editing as usual at an article? I.e., if I see some grammar, some other issue and I edit, could I accidentally be in violation? I know how 0RR relates to 3RR of course, but...do you follow my drift and can you answer? I don't see clarification of that point and I do not want to trip into this in some weird way when I fully intend to submit to this.—Djathinkimacowboy16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Not looking to trap you or anything, and I understand your concern. If you make a change or removal that you didn't know was a revert, and is not obviously something you should have known was a revert, then I certainly won't block you. It would be great in such cases to revert yourself if/when it's pointed out to you, if it hasn't already been done. The key is to not skate too close to the edge, but for about 98% of possible reverts, it's pretty obvious you've reverted, and I don't plan to block for the other 2%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Query answered, absolutely no thought at all that you might wish to entrap me. I needed to know for sure about the way 0RR applies in full. And I now see what you mean about the nature of a reversion (or even deliberate reversion) as opposed to merely routine editing/maintenance of articles. Ah: the reversions I mentioned were done by the time I mentioned them.—Djathinkimacowboy18:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
MISC., 2012
Battleground behavior
I consider your attack on my talk page inappropriate. For one thing, you're wrong; there's no requirement that all comments come at the bottom of a thread. For another, it smacks of wikihounding. A less experienced editor may have been scared off by your behavior, and I'm not going to tolerate that. So please, dial down the battleground mentality. --JaGatalk16:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I would ask you 1. Not to accuse me of battleground anything. I made a polite request of you. That is all. 2. Don't come accusing me of wikihounding anyone. A request is not wikihounding. 3. Do not accuse me of attempting to somehow frighten you. I will apologise if I came off abrasively, but I say to you: badly done.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)--CC to editor's talk.—Djathinkimacowboy18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
"I ask your pardon and offer full apologies. I am apologising to all editors who were offended." With that, I have posted to pertinent editors and now CC it here. I've apologised at the DRN and have moved that the discussion be closed.—Djathinkimacowboy19:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Problems
You seem to be getting into quite a few scrapes again at the moment, although I am not following the details and have no idea of the rights and wrongs. However, clearing out your talk page as you do really makes things much more difficult for everyone and can give the impression that you are being abrasive and/or dismissive of concerns etc. It is in fact one of the reasons why I have not bothered looking into the rights and wrongs, and thus may be self-defeating.
Have you taken a look at the various methods for archiving talk pages? You current "system" is incredibly complex and it seems that most stuff is simply deleted. Obviously, you can delete what ever you like here but when you do it as frequently as you do, and seemingly in response to any perceived criticism leveled at you, it can begin to look like a case of WP:IDHT or something similar. Maybe time for a rethink? - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Sitush! Nice to hear from you. Are you aware that I am archiving practically everything? Did you not look at my archive? Now, the one post you seem to be referencing was something that in a couple of days would have sounded meaningless, I got the message and I do have the right to delete what I want. Don't I? In any case, aside from that little exchange I deleted, I have deleted nothing. It is all there in my archive. And it is not complex; stuff's in perfect order, it is simply sectioned into collapsed segments and I don;t see a problem.—Djathinkimacowboy19:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Sitush, I read IDHT ... are you suggesting that is what I am doing? Would you please explain it me a bit better? I really hope you're not thinking that I am 'up to no good'! However, if you're worried, please read all the facts first and then I'll be happy as always to take your good advice.—Djathinkimacowboy19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I stopped watching changes to the article during the mediation as I knew that otherwise I would find it very hard to resist getting involved in editing it. I will take a look at the recent changes.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I awarded everyone who, in the last 24 or 48 hours did really good work on the articles I watch. People deserve this recognition. I feel not enough stars get awarded.—Djathinkimacowboy19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Not at all, my friends. You are unaware of the tormented history Columbo and others have recently suffered. Every great contrib deserves a star, and every good contrib there is great.—Djathinkimacowboy21:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if it were me I would've put a note under the ANI thread saying that the user asked me not to post on their talkpage and could someone else inform them, for the sake of courtesy, but not all users do that. But yeah, saying to someone "You give this place a really bad name" isn't very nice itself. Neither of you have acted perfectly. I think he wants you to redact that comment about him before he lets it go, I'm not sure. It's all a mess. *sigh* OohBunnies!Leave a message :)15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Bun, I had planned to leave it some days ago. As of now, and since I warned Andy, I'm having no further part. I guess I was just fed up with his posts in particular - and it isn't the 1st time. Thanks for posting, you're always welcome. You know, it is my opinion that he is one of those who gives ANI a bad name. Maybe an erroneous view, but it's how I feel. It has been my sad duty a few times to have to tell admins that the one thing they can't control is personal opinions.—Djathinkimacowboy20:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No, they can't control your opinions, but they can make you keep quiet about them. :P Being blunt or honest can be helpful in some cases, but in others I just keep my opinions to myself lest I make the Wiki implode from the sheer amount of drama. Well, at least the thread was finally closed. I'm gonna stay away from the YRC thread too because too many people think that accusing someone of having a queer agenda is not a big deal and that's so depressing. OohBunnies!Leave a message :)20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You're right, my dear. It is angering and saddening. I know you have been understanding all along--and in the end, what can we do. We have to suppress our fingers at the keyboard. It's just I won't be pushed round, and I see Andy's tactic as being just that. I despise bullies. That's why people here always accuse me of being one. Everyone's just salivating for another WP:WIKILYNCHING. But I think it needs to be indicated that his posting an ANI notice here just so I'd see his angry retort is no way to act.—Djathinkimacowboy20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
BRITISH THRONE, LINE OF SUCCESSION TO, very long & varied
HI&RH Archduke Stefan of Austria (1932–1998) Count Christopher Habsburg (b 1957)XP / GF 14:577 Count Stefan Habsburg (b 1990)XP / W Countess Saygan Habsburg (b 1987)XP / GF 14:577 Countess Maria Antonia Habsburg (b 1997)XP / W Count Peter HabsburgW XP (b 1959)XP / GF 14:578 Count Anton Habsburg (b 1964)XP / GF 14:578 Ileana Habsburg-Snyder (b 1958)XP / GF 14:578
Nicholas Snyder (b 1987)W
Alexandra Snyder (b 1984)W
Constanza Snyder (b 1994)W Constanza Bain (b 1960)XP / GF 14:578 Michael Bain (b 1998)W XP HI&RH Archduke Dominic of Austria (b 1937)XP / GF 14:108 Count Sandor von Habsburg (b 1965)XP / GF 14:578 Count Constantin von Habsburg (b 2000)XP / W Count Gregor von Habsburg (b 1968)XP / GF 14:578 Countess Maria Ileana Kottulinsky (1933–1959) Maria Ileana van Innis (b 1958)XP / W Countess Alexandra von Baillou (b 1933)XP / W Baroness Maria Magdalena von Holzhausen (b 1939)XP / W Baron Johann von Holzhausen (b 1960)XP / W Baron Laurenz von Holzhausen (b 2001)XI XP / W Baron Georg von Holzhausen (b 1962)XP / W Baron Alexander von Holzhausen (b 1994)XP / W Baron Tassilo von Holzhausen (b 1997)XP / W Baron Clemens von Holzhausen (b 2003)XP / W Alexandra Ferch (b 1963)XP / W
Ferdinand Ferch (b 1986) W
Leopold Ferch (b 1988) W
Benedikt Ferch (b 1993) W
Elisabeth Ferch (b 1995) W Elisabeth Sandhofer (b 1942)XP / W
HSH Princess Alexandra of Leiningen (b 1997) GF 17 HSH Kira Melita, Princess of Yugoslavia (1930–2005) her descendants are higher in line as descendants of her husband, Prince Andrej of Yugoslavia HSH Princess Margarita of Leiningen, Princess of Hohenzollern (1932–1996) HH The Prince of Hohenzollern (Karl Friedrich, b 1952)XP / GF 14:55 HSH The Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern (Alexander, b 1987)XP / GF 14:55 HSH Princess Philippa of Hohenzollern (b 1988)XP / GF 14:55 HSH Princess Flaminia of Hohenzollern (b 1992)XP / W HSH Princess Antonia of Hohenzollern (b 1995)XP / W HSH Prince Albrecht of Hohenzollern (b 1954)XP / GF 14:55 HSH Princess Josephine of Hohenzollern (b 2002)XP / W HRH Princess Eugenia of Hohenzollern (b 2005)XP / W HSH Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern (b 1960)XP / GF 14:55 HSH Prince Aloys of Hohenzollern (b 1999)XP / W HSH Prince Fidelis of Hohenzollern (b 2001)XP / W HSH Princess Victoria of Hohenzollern (b 2004)XP / W Mechtilde Bauscher (b 1936)GF 13:258
HRH Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia (b 1942) GF 14:146 HH Duke Paul Wladimir of Oldenburg (b 1969)XM / GF 13:97 HH Duke Kirill of Oldenburg (b 2002)XP / GF 17 HH Duke Carlos of Oldenburg (b 2004)XP / W HH Duke Paul of Oldenburg (b 2005)XP / GF 17 HH Duchess Maria Assunta of Oldenburg (b 2007)XP / GF 17
Don Alfonso de Orléans-Borbón y Parodi Delfino (1941–1975) The Duke of Galliera (Alfonso de Orléans-Borbón, b 1968)XP Don Alonso de Orléans y Goeders (b 1994)XP Don Alvaro de Orléans y Ferrara Pignatelli (b 1969)XP Don Alvaro d'Orléans y Parodi Delfino (b 1947)XP Don Andrea de Orléans (b 1976)XP Don Alois de Orléans (b 1979)XP Doña Pilar de Orléans y San Martino d'Aglié (b 1975)XP
Felix Henderson-Stewart (b 2007)
NN Henderson-Stewart (b 2008)
NN Henderson-Stewart (b 2009)
Doña Gerarda d'Orléans y Parodi Delfino (b 1939)XP Marco Saint (b 1969)XP Carla Saint (b 1967)XP Nicolas de Haro y Saint (b 2001)XI XP Mateo de Haro y Saint (b 2007)XP Sofía de Haro y Saint (b 2004)XP Doña Beatriz d'Orléans y Parodi Delfino (b 1943)XP Gerardo Farini (b 1967)XP Doña Elena Farini (b 1969)XP Don Tomas de Haro y Farini (b 2003)XP Doña Claudia de Haro y Farini (b 2000)XP
Baroness Madeleine von Dincklage (b 1999)
HRH Princess Birgitta of Sweden, Princess Johann Georg of Hohenzollern (b 1937)XM / GF 14:56 HSH Prince Carl Christian of Hohenzollern (b 1962)XP / GF 14:56 HSH Prince Nicolas of Hohenzollern (b 1999)XP HSH Prince Hubertus of Hohenzollern (b 1966)XP / GF 14:56 HSH Princess Vivianne of Hohenzollern (b 2009) [8] HSH Princess Désirée of Hohenzollern, Mrs. Eckbert von Bohlen und Halbach (b 1963)XP / GF 14:56 HIllH The Hereditary Count of Ortenburg (Carl-Theodor, b 1992) HIllH Count Frederik von Ortenburg (b 1995) HIllH Countess Carolina von Ortenburg (b 1997)
Daniel Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (b 1988)
Maria Claudia SchäferXM (b 1949) Christina Martens (b 1972) Gian Martens (b 2001) Louis Martens (b 2006)[9] Aimée Martens (b 2003) Gianetta Schäfer (b 1974)
HH Princess Beatrice of Saxe-Meiningen (b 1951)
HH Prince Friedrich Constantine of Saxe-Meiningen (b 1980)
HH Princess Marie Alexandra of Saxe-Meiningen (b 1978)
Philipp Prinz von Preussen (b 1986) GF 14:150 HRH Princess Marie Luise of Prussia, Countess Rudolf von Schönburg-Glauchau (b 1945)XM / GF 13:355 Count Friedrich von Schönburg-Glauchau (b 1985)XP / GF 13:356 Countess Sophie von Schönburg-Glauchau (b 1979)XP / GF 13:356 HRH Princess Victoria Marina of Prussia (1917–1981)
Berengar Patterson (b 1948) W Marina Engel (1948–2011)
HRH Prince Franz Friedrich of Prussia (b 1944)
Christine KempkesXI (b 1968) Alexandra ReboaXM (b 1960) Alberto Reboa von PreussenXI P (b 1994) Alexandra Reboa von PreussenXI P (b 1995) Désirée Gamarra (b 1961) Juan Francisco Gamarra y von Preussen (b 1987) Inés Gamarra y von Preussen (b 1989)
Alix von Solodkoff (b 1992)
HH Duchess Edwina of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mrs. von PosernXM (b 1960) Ludwig von PosernXP (b 1996) Paul von PosernXP (b 1997) Ferdinand von PosernXP (b 1999)
HRH The Duke of AostaXP (Prince Amedeo, b 1943) HRH The Duke of ApuliaXP (Prince Aimone, b 1967) HRH Prince Umberto of SavoyXP (b 2009) HRH Princess Bianca of Savoy, Countess Arrivabene-Valenti-GonzagaXP (b 1966) Count Leonardo Arrivabene-Valenti-GonzagaXP (b 2001) Donna Viola Arrivabene-Valenti-GonzagaXP (b 1991) Donna Vera Arrivabene-Valenti-GonzagaXP (b 1993) Donna Mafalda Arrivabene-Valenti-GonzagaXP (b 1997) Donna Maddalena Arrivabene-Valenti-GonzagaXP (b 2000) HRH Princess Mafalda of Savoy, Baroness Lombardo di San ChiricoXP (b 1969) Nobile Carlo Lombardo di San ChiricoXI P (b 2001) Nobile Anna Lombardo di San Chirico (b 1999)XI P Nobile Elena Lombardo di San Chirico (b 2003)XP
HH Princess Elena of Hesse (b 2006)
HH Princess Mafalda of Hesse, Countess Brachetti-PerettiXM (b 1965) Cosmo dei Conti Brachetti-PerettiXI P (b 2000) Briano dei Conti Brachetti-PerettiXP (b 2002) Tatiana GaldoXP (b 1992) Polissena GaldoXP (b 1993)
HH Princess Elena of Hesse (b 1967)
HH Princess Elisabeth of Hesse, Countess von OppersdorffXM (b 1940) Count Friedrich von OppersdorffXP (b 1962) Count Alexander von OppersdorffXP (b 1965)
HH Prince Karl of HesseXM (b 1937) HH Prince Christoph of HesseXP (b 1969) HH The Countess of Schönburg-GlauchauXP (Irina, b 1971) HIllH Count Maxiumus von Schönburg-GlauchauXP (b 2003) HIllH Count Valentin von Schönburg-GlauchauXP (b 2005) HIllH Countess Maria-Laetitia von Schönburg-GlauchauXP (b 2001)
HM The King of SpainXP (Juan Carlos I, b 1938) his descendants are skipped higher in line as descendants of his wife, Sofía, Queen of Spain HRH Infanta Pilar, Duchess of Badajoz, Viscountess de la TorreXP (b 1936) HE The Viscount de la TorreXP (Don Juan, b 1969) HE Don Bruno Gómez-Acebo y de BorbónXP (b 1971) Alejandro Gómez-Acebo y CanoXP (b 2004) Guillermo Gómez-Acebo y CanoXP (b 2005) HE Don Beltrán Gómez-Acebo y de BorbónXP (b 1973) Luis Felipe Gómez-Acebo y PonteXP (b 2005) Laura Gómez-Acebo y PonteXP (b 2006) HE Don Fernando Gómez-Acebo y de BorbónXP (b 1974) HE Doña Simoneta Gómez-Acebo y de BorbónXP (b 1968) Luis Fernandez y Gómez-AceboXP (b 1991) Pablo Fernandez y Gómez-AceboXP (b 1995) Maria de las Mercedes Fernandez y Gómez-AceboXP (b 2000) HRH The Duchess of Hernani and SoriaXP (Infanta Margarita, b 1939) HE Don Alfonso Zurita y de BorbónXP (b 1973) HE Doña Maria Zurita y de BorbónXP (b 1975)
Victoria Eugenia, Queen of Spain → Infanta Beatriz of Spain, Princess of Civitella-Cesi (1909–2002)
HE The Prince of Civitella-Cesi (Don Marco Torlonia, b 1937) Don Giovanni TorloniaXP (b 1962) Don Stanislao TorloniaXP (b 2005) Vittoria Eugenia ColonnaXP (b 1971) Benedict LindsayXP (b 2001) Josephine LindsayXP (b 1998) Francesca ColonnaXP (b 2008) Caterina, Countess d'AlboraXI (b 1974) and her children HE Doña Sandra Torlonia, Countess Lequio di AssabaXP (b 1936) Count Alessandro Lequio di AssabaXP (b 1960) Count Clemente Lequio di AssabaXP (b 1988) Countess Desideria TournonXP (b 1962) Count Giovanni TournonXP (b 1991) Count Giorgio TournonXP (b 1994) Donna Olimpia WeillerXP (b 1943) Beatrice Correia do LagoXP (b 1967) Paul-Annik Correia do LagoXP (b 1996) Antonio Correia do LagoXP (b 1999) Helena Correia do LagoXP (b 1997) Vittoria Correia do LagoXP (b 2000) HRH Princess Sibilla of LuxembourgXP (b 1968) HH Prince Paul-Louis of NassauXP (b 1998) HH Prince Léopold of NassauXP (b 2000) HH Prince Jean of NassauXP (b 2004) HH Princess Charlotte of NassauXP (b 2000) Cosima WeillerXP (b 1984) Domitilla WeillerXP (b 1985)
HE Doña Vittoria Marone-Cinzano, Marchioness of Casa LoringXP (b 1941) HE The Count de VillapaternaXP (Don Francisco, b 1964) Don Daniel Alvarez de Toledo y SchlangerXP (b 1995) Don Jacobo Alvarez de Toledo y SchlangerXP (b 1997) Don Marco Alvarez de Toledo y Marone-CinzanoXP (b 1965) Don Gonzalo Alvarez de Toledo y Marone-CinzanoXP (b 1973) Doña Vittoria Eugenia Alvarez de Toledo y Marone-CinzanoXP (b 1961) Jaime Codorniu y Alvarez de ToledoXP (b 1985) Ana Codorniu y Alvarez de ToledoXP (b 1987) Carla Codorniu y Alvarez de ToledoXP (b 1990) Doña Giovanna Marone-CinzanoXP (b 1943) Alfonso Galobart y Marone-CinzanoXP (b 1969) Alfonso Galobart y KindelánXP (b 2002) Andrea Galobart y KindelánXP (b 1999) HE Doña Maria Teresa Marone-Cinzano, Duchess of BaneaXP (b 1945) The Duchess of Sanlucar de MayorXP (Christina, b 1968) The Marchioness of VillamanriqueXP (Isabel, b 1970) Cristina Izuzquiza y Ruiz de AranaXP (b 2002) The Marchioness of BrenesXP (Inez, b 1973) Doña Anna Alessandra SchwartzXP (b 1948) Astrid Stavro di SantarosaXP (b 1972) Yara Stavro di SantarosaXP (b 1974)
Alexandra, Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin → Duchess Anastasia of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Princess Friedrich Ferdinand of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (1923–1979)
HH Princess Elisabeth of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, Princess Ferdinand Heinrich of Isenburg-Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1945)
HSH Prince Johann Georg of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1976)
Princess Anna Carolina of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 2010)[12]
HSH Prince Ludwig Ferdinand of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1979)
HH Princess Irene of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (b 1946)
HH Princess Margaretha of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (b 1948)
HSH Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of LippeXI (b 1947) and his descendants HSH Prince Ernst August of LippeXM (b 1952) HSH Princess Maria Donata of LippeXP (b 1982)
Marie Stephanie von Itzenplitz (b 1949)
Georg Friedrich von Itzenplitz (b 1972)
Marie Sophie von Itzenplitz (b 1975)
Regina Jacubowsky (b 1959)
Maximilian Jacubowsky (b 1986)
Julius Jacubowsky (b 1991)
Victoria Jacubowsky (b 1984)
Countess Marie Jametel → Marie Augusta Jametel, Countess von Nemerow (1905–1969)
Ralph Barton genannt von Stedman (b 1933)
Gloria Barton genannt von Stedman (b 1964)
Stephanie Bastian (b 1968)
Andreas Bastian (b 2002)
Robert Bastian (b 2004)
Johanna Bastian (b 1995)
Carolin Bastian (b 1997)
Marie, Princess Julius Ernst of Lippe →
HSH Princess Elisabeth Caroline of Lippe, Princess Ernst-August of Solms-Braunfels (b 1916)
HSH Princess Maria Angela of Solms-Braunfels (b 1940)
Philippa von Harnier (b 2003)
Prince Dietrich of Wied (1901–1976)
HSH Prince Maximilian of Wied (b 1929)
HSH Prince Ulrich of Wied (b 1931)
HSH Prince Wilhelm Ulrich of Wied (b 1970)
HSH Prince Friedrich of Wied (b 2001)
HSH Prince George of Wied (b 2004)
HRH Duchess Marie of Württemberg (b 1973) HRH Duke Wilhelm of Württemberg (b 1994) HRH Duchess Marie-Amélie of Württemberg (b 1996) HRH Duchess Sophie-Dorothee of Württemberg (b 1997) Prince Ludwig Eugen of Wied (1938–2001)
HSH Prince Karl Edzard of Wied (b 1968)
King William I of Württemberg → Princess Augusta of Württemberg, Princess Hermann of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1826–1898)
HH Princess Leonie of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (b 1986)
Elisabeth de Kant (b 1945)
Beatrice Davidson (b 1948)
Bettina Davidson (b 1979)
HH Prince Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1917–1986)
HH Prince Wilhelm Ernst of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (b 1946)
HH Prince Georg Constantin of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (b 1977)
Countess Désirée von und zu HoensbroechXM (b 1974) Count Philipp-Benedikt von und zu HoensbroechXP (b 2002) Count Friedrich-Johannes von und zu HoensbroechXP (b 2004) Count Franziskus-Leonhard von und zu HoensbroechXP (b 2006) HRH Princess Katharina of HohenzollernXM (b 1943) HRH Prince Carl Alexander of HohenzollernXP (b 1970) HRH Princess Eugenia of HohenzollernXP (b 1969) Angeline von HohenzollernXI (b 1988) Jörg Brena (1921-2011)
HSH Prince Georg-Viktor of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1936)
HSH Prince Christian-Ludwig of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1967)
HSH Prince Christian of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1998)
HSH Prince Victor of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2000)
HSH Prince Casimir of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2002)
HSH Prince Moritz of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2006)
HSH Prince Wolrad Friedrich of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1974)
Friederike Paar (b 1963)
Georg-Philipp Paar (b 1992)
Maximilian Paar (b 1994)
Dorothea Paar (b 1995)
Barbara Düsel (b 1965)
Alexander Düsel (b 1991)
Dominik Düsel (b 1993)
Katharina Düsel (b 1996)
HSH The Princess of Castell-Castell (Marie Luise, b 1930)
HIllH The Hereditary Count zu Castell-Castell (Alexander Friedrich, b 1954)
HIllH Count Conradin zu Castell-Castell (b 1984)
HIllH Count Gustav zu Castell-Castell (b 2003)
HIllH Count Johann zu Castell-Castell (b 2005)
HIllH Countess Richiza zu Castell-Castell (b 1985)
HIllH Count Georg Friedrich zu Castell-Castell (b 1956)
HIllH Count Jakob zu Castell-Castell (b 1984)
HIllH Count Anton Georg zu Castell-Castell (b 1988)
HIllH Count Franz zu Castell-Castell (b 1991)
HIllH Countess Johanna Franziska zu Castell-Castell (b 1985)
HIllH Countess Emilie zu Castell-Castell (b 1995)
HIllH Count Ferdinand zu Castell-Castell (b 1965)
HIllH Count Carl Eduard zu Castell-Castell (b 2001)
HIllH Countess Benedicta zu Castell-Castell (b 2003)
HIllH Countess Leontina zu Castell-Castell (b 2006)
HIllH Countess Floriana zu Castell-Castell (b 2008)[16] HSH Princess Philippa of Salm-SalmXM (b 1952) HSH Prince Constantin of Salm-SalmXP (b 1980) HSH Prince Casper of Salm-SalmXP (b 2010)[16] HSH Princess Carlotta of Salm-SalmXP (b 2009)[16] HSH Prince Felix of Salm-SalmXP (b 1981) Countess Christina von und zu HoensbroechXP (b 1978) Count Gabriel von und zu HoensbroechXP (b 2004) Count Florentin von und zu HoensbroechXP (b 2005) Count Jacobus von und zu HoensbroechXP (b 2007)[16] Count Balthasar von und zu HoensbroechXP (b 2009)[16] HSH Princess Marie-Anna of Salm-SalmXP (b 1986) Baroness Antonia von MirbachXP (b 1987) HSH Princess Cecily of Salm-SalmXP (b 1989) HSH Princess Joanna of LobkowiczXM (b 1952) HSH Prince Nikolaus of LobkowiczXP (b 1978) HSH Prince Johannes of LobkowiczXP (b 2010)[16] HSH Prince Maximilian of LobkowiczXP (b 1982) HSH Prince Wenzel of LobkowiczXP (b 1986) HSH Princess Marie-Sophie of LobkowiczXP (b 1980) Maria Lioba SchneiderXP (b 1985) Nepomuk ScneiderXP (b 2009)[16] Philomena-Sophie ScneiderXP (b 2008)[16] HSH Princess Agnes Christina of LobkowiczXP (b 1992) HSH Princess Ida Maria of LobkowiczXP (b 1996) Countess Stephanie von Khevenhüller-MetschXM (b 1966) Countess Hemma von Khevenhüller-MetschXP (b 1994) Countess Teresa von Khevenhüller-MetschXP (b 1996) Countess Marie von Khevenhüller-MetschXP (b 1998) Countess Paula von Khevenhüller-MetschXP (b 2003)
Princess Helene of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1943)
Baron Ludwig von Forstner (b 1974)
Prince Georg of Waldeck and Pyrmont (1902–1971)
HSH Prince Josias Friedrich of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1935)
HSH Prince Alexander of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1972)
Princess Charlotte of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2007)
Princess Philipa of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2008)
Princess Freya of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2010)[16]
HSH Prince Clemens of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1975)
HSH Prince Georg-Friedrich of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1936)
HSH Prince Philipp-Heinrich of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1968)
HIllH Countess Christine Henriette zu Castell-Rüdenhausen (b 1963)
HIllH Count Casimir zu Castell-Rüdenhausen (b 1994)
HIllH Countess Annabelle-Florentina zu Castell-Rüdenhausen (b 1991)
HIllH Countess Cecily Viktoria zu Castell-Rüdenhausen (b 1992)
HSH Princess Marie Isabelle of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1965)
HSH Prince Volkwin of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1940)
HSH Prince Friedrich Anton-Ulrich of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1969)
HSH Princess Donata-Sophie of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2005)
HSH Prince Nikolaus of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1970)
his descendants are higher in line as descendants of his wife, Princess Katharina of Waldeck and Pyrmont
HSH Prince Ludwig of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1983)
Johanna Felicitas de la Villethéart (b 1984)
HSH Prince Christian-Peter of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1945)
HSH Prince Georg-Wilhelm of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1972)
HSH Prince Friedrich-Carl of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1999)
HSH Prince Maximilian of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2000)
HSH Prince Caspar of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2004)
HSH Prince Christian of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2004)
HSH Princess Sophie of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2002)
HH Duke Georg-Moritz of Oldenburg (b 1957)
HIllH Princess Margarete of CroÿXM (b 1954) HIllH Prince Alexander of CroÿXP (b 1987) HIllH Prince Maximilian of CroÿXP (b 1988) HIllH Princess Rosalie of CroÿXP (b 1990)
Beatrix von Storch (b 1971)
Sophie von RadowitzXM (b 1972) Joseph von RadowitzXP (b 2006) Aglaë von RadowitzXP (b 2009) Enzo von RadowitzXP (b 2010)[16]
HH Duke Johann Friedrich of Oldenburg (b 1940)
HH Duke Konstantin of Oldenburg (b 1975)
HI&RH Archduchess Eilika of AustriaXM (b 1972) HI&RH Archduke Károly-Konstantin of AustriaXP (b 2004) HI&RH Archduchess Zsófia of AustriaXP (b 2001) HI&RH Archduchess Ildiko of AustriaXP (b 2002)
Juliane Winkhaus (b 1966)
Prince Karl of Bentheim and Steinfurt (1884–1951) HSH Prince Hubertus of Bentheim and Steinfurt (1919–2010)[16]
HSH Prince Rudolf of Bentheim and Steinfurt (b 1959)
HSH Prince Nikolaus of Bentheim and Steinfurt (b 1962)
HSH Prince Leopold of Bentheim and SteinfurtXI (b 2000)
HSH Prince Xaver of Bentheim and Steinfurt (b ?)[16]
HSH Prince Lorenz of Bentheim and Steinfurt (b ?)[16]
Huberta Deuse (b 1961)
Rebekka DeuseXI (b 1994)[16] HSH Prince Botho of Bentheim and Steinfurt (1924–2001) his descendants are higher in line as descendants of his wife, Alexandra of Bentheim and Steinfurt
Prince Carl Bernadotte (1911–2003) Madeleine KogevinasXM (b 1938) The Count de Schooten-WhetnallXP (Jean Charles Ullens, b 1965) Count Charlie Ullens de Schooten-WhetnallXP (b 2010) [12] Countess Alix Ullens de Schooten-WhetnallXP (b 2007) [12] Marie-Christine DuysanXP (b 1964) Diégo DuysanXP (b 1996) Sarah DuysanXP (b 1997) Nina DuysanXP (b 2001) Astrid JadotXP (b 1971) Victoria JadotXP (b 1997) Joséphine JadotXP (b 1999) Milla JadotXP (b 2005) Countess Sophie Ullens de Schooten-WhetnallXP (b 1973) Désirée Rosenørn-LanngXI (b 1977) Princess Margaretha of Sweden, Princess Axel of Denmark (1899–1977) HE Count Flemming Valdemar of Rosenborg (1922–2002)
Count Baudouin de WittXP (b 1947) Jean-Emanuel de Witt (b 1970) Wladimir de WittXP (b ?)[20] Melchior de WittXP (b ?)[20] Alexandra de WittXP (b 1969) Henri de MontaudoüinXP (b 1996) Elia de MontaudoüinXP (b 1998) Thaïs de MontaudoüinXP (b 2001) Countess Laetitia de VillelumeXP (b 1974) Tamara de VillelumeXP (b 2008)[20] Count Jean de WittXP (b 1950) Alexandre de WittXP (b 1971) Marie-Clothilde de WittXP (b 1977) Iliona de WittXP (b 1980) Wladimir de WittXP (b 1952) Victor de WittXP (b 1979) Dimitri de WittXP (b 1997) Igor de WittXP (b 2001) Elena de WittXP (b 1977) Ségolène de WittXP (b 1983) Hortense de WittXP (b 1996) Marie Eugénie de WittXP (b 1939) Hélène de WittXP (b 1941) Count Jean du Lau d'AllemansXP (b 1960) Count Serge Igor du Lau d'AllemansXP (b 2001) Count Armand Leopold du Lau d'AllemansXP (b 2005) Count Alexandre du Lau d'AllemansXP (b 1962) Count Stanislas du Lau d'AllemansXP (b 1991) Count Sébastien du Lau d'AllemansXP (b 1996) Clémentine du Lau d'AllemansXP (b 1993) Astrid Letourneur XP (b 1963) Hadrien LetourneurXP (b 1997) Lucretia LetourneurXP (b 1995) Véra, Marchioness of CommarqueXP (b 1945) Grégoire, Count de CommarqueXP (b 1967)
Count Cyril de CommarqueXP (b 1970)
Isabelle LaanXP (b 1949) Constantin LaanXP (b 1974)
Adrien LaanXP (b 1977)
Jérôme LaanXP (b 1981)
Anne Robert de RancherXP (b 1953) Baron Charles-Louis Robert de RancherXP (b 1981)
Baron Edouard-Henri Robert de RancherXP (b 1984)
HIllH Count Christian-Friedrich zu Solms-Baruth (b 1954)
HIllH Count Alexander zu Solms-Baruth (b 1989)
HIllH Countess Oda-Desiree zu Solms-Baruth (b 1981)
HIllH Countess Caroline Mathilda zu Solms-Baruth (b 1987)
HSH Princess Irina of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1953)
HSH Prince Christian-Albrecht of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1974)
HSH Prince Nicolaus of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1975)
HSH Prince Ludwig-Ferdinand of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1986)
HSH Princess Marie-Charlotte of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1979)
HSH Princess Marie-Elisabeth of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1982)
HSH Princess Maria-Catharina of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1985)
HSH Princess Marie-Sophia of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1988)
Huberta Herlich (b 1958)
Benjamin Herlich (b 1985)
Gabriel Herlich (b 1988)
Count Hubertus zu Solms-Baruth (1934–1991)
HIllH Count Ruprecht zu Solms-Baruth (b 1963)
HIllH Count Kasimir zu Solms-Baruth (b 1991)
HIllH Count Hubertus zu Solms-Baruth (b 1993)
HIllH Count Clemens zu Solms-Baruth (b 1996)
Baroness Donata von Brockdorff (b 1965)
HIllH Countess Eilika von Waldburg zu Wolfegg und WaldseeXM (b 1966) HIllH Count August von Waldburg zu Wolfegg und WaldseeXP (b 1997) HIllH Count Theodor von Waldburg zu Wolfegg und WaldseeXP (b 1998) HIllH Countess Lioba von Waldburg zu Wolfegg und WaldseeXP (b 1994) HIllH Countess Laetitia von Waldburg zu Wolfegg und WaldseeXP (b 2000)
Marie Alexandrine, Princess Heinrich VII Reuss of Köstritz → Prince Heinrich XXXV Reuss of Köstritz (1887–1936)
HSH Prince Heinrich V Reuss of Köstritz (1921–1980)
HSH Prince Heinrich XXVII Ico Reuss (b 1964)
Princess Henriette Reuss of Köstritz (b 2000)
HIllH Alexandra, Hereditary Countess zu Erbach-Erbach (b 1963)
her descendants are higher in line as descendants of her husband, Eberhard, Hereditary Count zu Erbach-Erbach
Caroline Papst (b 1968)
Marie Alexandrine, Princess Heinrich VII Reuss of Köstritz → Princess Sophie Renate Reuss of Köstritz, Princess Heinrich XXXIV Reuss of Köstritz (1884–1968)
HSH Prince Heinrich I Reuss of Köstritz (1910–1982)
HSH Prince Heinrich VIII Reuss of Köstritz (b 1944)
HSH Prince Heinrich XX Reuss of Köstritz (b 1975)
HSH Prince Heinrich XXIII Reuss of Köstritz (b 1979)
HSH Prince Heinrich IX Reuss of Köstritz (b 1947)
HSH Prince Heinrich XXVI Reuss of Köstritz (b 1988)
HSH Princess Johanna Reuss of Köstritz (b 1985)
HSH Prince Heinrich X Reuss of Köstritz (b 1948)
HSH Prince Heinrich XXIV Reuss of Köstritz (b 1984)
HSH Princess Benigna Reuss of Köstritz (b 1980)
HSH Prince Heinrich XIII Reuss of Köstritz (b 1951)
HSH Prince Heinrich XXVIII Reuss of Köstritz (b 1991)
HSH Princess Elena Reuss of Köstritz (b 1989)
HSH Prince Heinrich XV Reuss of Köstritz (b 1956)
HSH Prince Heinrich XXX Reuss of Köstritz (b 1999)
HSH Princess Feodora Reuss of Köstritz, Countess zu Stolberg-Wernigerode (b 1942)
HIllH Count Constantin zu Stolberg-Wernigerode (b 1969)
HIllH Count Friedrich zu Stolberg-Wernigerode (b 1972)
HSH Prince Heinrich III Reuss of Köstritz (1919–1993)
HSH Prince Heinrich XII Reuss of Köstritz (b 1950)
HSH Prince Heinrich XXI Reuss of Köstritz (b 1976)
HSH Prince Heinrich III Reuss of Köstritz (b 2010) [22]
HSH Prince Heinrich XXV Reuss of Köstritz (b 1984)
Anna Lattorff (b 1975)
HSH Princess Maximiliana Reuss of Köstritz (b 1977)
HSH Princess Maria Concetta Reuss of Köstritz (b 1988)
HSH Princess Maria Viktora Reuss of Köstritz (b 1993)
HSH Prince Heinrich XVII Reuss of Köstritz (b 1968)
Antoinette de Scheel (b 1945)
Alexandra de Scheel (b 1985)
HSH Princess Felizitas Reuss of Köstritz, Countess von Schönborn-Wiesentheid (b 1946)
HSH Prince Carl Constantin of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1968)
HSH Prince Philipp of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (b 1970)
HIllH Count Gregor von Schönborn-Wiesentheid (b 1977)
HSH Princess Felizitas Reuss of Köstritz, Princess of Isenburg and Büdingen (1914–1989)
HSH The Prince of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (Wolfgang-Ernst, b 1936)
HSH The Hereditary Prince of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (Casimir-Alexander, b 1967)
HSH Prince Ferdinand Maximilian of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1969)
HSH Prince Tassilo-Alexander of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 2006)
HSH Princess Madeleine Felizitas of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 2004)
HSH Princess Felizitas-Magdalena of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1980)
HSH Prince Ferdinand-Heinrich of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach in Wächtersbach (1940–1989) his descendants are higher in line as descendants of his wife, Princess Elisabeth of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg HSH Prince Christian-Albrecht of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach in Wächtersbach (1943–2003)
HSH Prince Johann of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1968)
HSH Prince Donatus of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 2000)
HSH Prince Johann Philipp of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 2002)
HSH Princess Margita of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1966)
HSH Princess Donata of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1970)
HSH Prince Sylvester of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1949)
HSH Prince Friedrich Leopold of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1983)
HSH Princess Dorothea of Isenburg and Büdingen in Wächtersbach (b 1986)
HSH Countess Henriette of Solms-Baruth (b 1964) daughter of Prince Heinrich XI Reuss
her descendants are higher in line as descendants of her husband, Count Ruprecht zu Solms-Baruth
Friederike von Lengerich (b 1976)
Johann von Lengerich (b 2005)
Elisabeth von Lengerich (b ?)
Charlotte von Lengerich (b 2009)
Marianne Feldman (b 1936)
Charlotte, Princess Heinrich XVIII Reuss of Köstritz → Prince Heinrich XLII Reuss of Köstritz (1892–1949)
Donall Philippe Cunningham (b 2002)
HRH The Dowager Duchess of Hohenberg (Elisabeth, b 1922)XP HSH Princess Anita of Hohenberg (b 1958)XP Count Gaëtan de La Poëze d'Harambure (b 1980)XP Count Gabriel de La Poëze d'Harambure (b 1987)XP Count Raoul de La Poëze d'Harambure (b 1989)XP Alix Fraye (b 1981)XP HSH Princess Sophie of Hohenberg (b 1960)XP Baron Charles-Louis de Potesta (b 1985)XP Eléonore de Potesta (b 1984)XP Elisabeth de Potesta (b 1988)XP HRH Princess Marie Adelaide of Luxembourg, Countess Henckel von Donnersmarck (1924–2007)XP Count Andreas Henckel von Donnersmarck (b 1959)XP Count Ludwig Henckel von Donnersmarck (b 2001)XP Count Albrecht Henckel von Donnersmarck (b 2006)XP Countess Laura Henckel von Donnersmarck (b 1997)XP Countess Marie Henckel von Donnersmarck (b 1998)XP Count Heinrich Winfried Henckel von Donnersmarck (b 1961)XP Count Tassilo Henckel von Donnersmarck (b 2003)XP Countess Charlotte von Meran (b 1965)XP Count Johannes von Meran (b 2004)XP Count Anna von Meran (b 2006)XP Count Camilla von Meran (b 2008)XP HRH Princess Marie Gabriele of Luxembourg, Lensgrevinde Holstein til Ledreborg (b 1925)XP Monica de Dompierre de Jonquières (b 1952)XP HRH Princess Lydia of Bourbon-Parma (b 1955)XP HRH Prince Michel of Bourbon-Parma (b 1989)XP HRH Prince Henri of Bourbon-Parma (b 1991)XP HRH Princess Antoinette of Bourbon-Parma (b 1981)XP HRH Princess Marie-Gabrielle of Bourbon-Parma (b 1982)XP HRH Princess Alexia of Bourbon-Parma (b 1985)XP Rebecca Davis (b 2004)XI
Bianca Davis (b 2008)
Veronica de Pottere (b 1956)XP Charles de Pottere (b 1982)XP Alexander Gabriel de Pottere (b 1985)XP Silvia Munro of Foulis (b 1958)XP Alexander Munro of Foulis (b 1985)XP Tatiana Munro of Foulis (b 1983)XP Charlotte Munro of Foulis (b 1990)XP Angela Munro of Foulis (b 1992)XP Camilla, Baroness Bertouch-Lehn til Højbygaard-Lungholm (1959-2010)XP
Baron Nicolas Bertouch-Lehn til Højbygaard-Lungholm (b 1986)
Baron Philip Bertouch-Lehn til Højbygaard-Lungholm (b 1989)
Tatiana von Riedemann (b 1961)XP Therese von Riedemann (b 2000)XP Countess Antonia of Holstein-Ledreborg (b 1962)XP HRH The Dowager Princess of Ligne (Alix, b 1929)XP HH The Prince of Ligne (Michel; b 1951)XP HH The Hereditary Prince of Ligne (Henri Antoine, b 1989)XP HH Princess Alix of Ligne (b 1984)XP HH Prince Wauthier of Ligne (b 1952)XP HH Prince Philippe of Ligne (b 1977)XP HH Prince Jean-Charles of Ligne (b 2010)XP HH Princess Melanie-Yolande of Ligne (b 1979)XP HH Princess Elisabeth-Eleonore of Ligne (b 1983)XP Baron Antoine Gillès de Pelichy (b 2006)XP Baron Charles Gillès de Pelichy (b 2008)XP Baroness Philippine Gillès de Pelichy (b 2010)XP HH Prince Antoine of Ligne (b 1959)XP HH Prince Louis of Ligne (b 2003)XP HH Princess Marie of Ligne (b 2004)XP HH Princess Florence of Ligne (b 2006)XP HH Princess Anne-Marie of Ligne (b 1954)XP Laure Mortgart (b 1983)XP Isabelle-Marie Mortgart (b 1985)XP HRH Princess Christine of Orléans-Braganza (b 1955)XP HI&RH Prince Rafael of Orléans-Braganza (b 1986)XP HI&RH Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza (b 1984)XP HI&RH Princess Maria of Orléans-Braganza (b 1989)XP HH Princess Sophie of Ligne, Countess de Nicolay (b 1957)XP Count François de Nicolay (b 1989)XP Count Guy de Nicolay (b 1993)XP Yolande Townsend (b 1964)XP
The line of succession to the British throne is the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and the other 15 Commonwealth realms. The Act of Settlement 1701 bestowed succession on the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her descendants while excluding Roman Catholics.[24][25] The British government does not publish an official list of all those in line to succeed, but the work of genealogical authors and amateur researchers suggests that there are several thousand people potentially in line.[26] This article does not attempt to present an exhaustive list, but limits itself to the descendants of George V. At a summit in Perth, Western Australia in 2011, the heads of government of all the 16 Commonwealth realms agreed to take steps to end male preference primogeniture and the ban on the monarch's marriage to Roman Catholics, and to make other changes in the succession rules.[27]
The right of succession is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701, the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and common law,[29] and is limited to the legitimate descendants of legitimate line from the Electress Sophia of Hanover. A person born to parents who are not married to each other at the time of birth is not included in the line of succession and passes no rights to their descendants. The subsequent marriage of the parents does not alter this.[n 1][30]
The succession is ordered by male-preference (cognatic) primogeniture. A person is always immediately followed in the succession by his or her own legitimate descendants (his or her line) except for any legitimate descendants who already appear higher in the line of succession. A person's sons and their lines all come before a person's daughters and their lines. Older sons and their lines come before younger sons and their lines. Older daughters and their lines come before younger daughters and their lines.[31]
At the time of accession, the heir to the throne must be a Protestant and enter into communion with the Church of England.[30]
Anyone who is Roman Catholic, becomes Roman Catholic, or marries a Roman Catholic is excluded from the line of succession.[30]
The above list is limited to the descendants of George V. The line of succession continues with the other eligible descendants of Edward VII and earlier British monarchs (as well as Frederick, Prince of Wales) back to George I(the list is limited to Sophia of Hanover's descendants, of whom all alive today are also George I's descendants). The last person in line, as reported in recent years, is believed to be Ms Karin Vogel (born 1973) from Rostock, Germany.[26][30] However no official, complete, version of the line of succession is currently maintained.
Notes and sources: Children are shown after their parents and slightly indented. Ineligible persons are in italics.
^The Legitimacy Act 1926, 10 (1) says, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the Succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title." The Legitimacy Act 1959, 6 (4) says, "It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession to the Throne."
^Albert and Leopold Windsor are listed on The Official Website of the British Monarchy as following Estella Taylor (b 2004), not following Lady Amelia Windsor. They are not listed in either Debrett's or Whitaker's.
^It is disputed whether or not Carol Lambrino was born legitimate (and therefore in line of succession to the British throne). Carol was conceived and born after a Romanian court had issued an annulment of his parents' marriage (contrary to the wishes of his parents who continued to live together as husband and wife). Later Romanian courts, as well as courts in France and Portugal, have recognised Carol as legitimate. Willis regards Carol as illegitimate, while Reitwiesner includes him and his sons in the succession believing King Michael to be the issue of a bigamous marriage.
^Reitwiesner mistakenly lists Johanna as Johann, and therefore mistakenly places her in line before instead of after her brother Philipp. Cf. Paul Theroff "Schleswig-Holstein"
^Ferdinand has two younger brothers listed with question marks at Monarchies of Europe
^Williamson, David; Ellis, Patricia, eds. (1988). Debrett's Distinguished People of Today. Debrett's Peerage. p. 61. ISBN0 905649 99 0. First 25 in succession as listed - Viscount [David] Lascelles being the 25th
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Djathinkimacowboy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE EVEN HERE, BUT IF YOU POST OR EDIT THIS OR OTHER ARCHIVAL PAGES, YOU'LL BE REPORTED FOR VANDALISM.
.svg)
.jpg)
