User talk:Tony1/AdminReview/Archive 1

Purpose (from original archive of User talk:Tony1/AdminWatch/Archive 1)
So what is the purpose of this page, exactly? To watch admins? How do you intend for it to work? – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you stalking me? Tony   (talk)  14:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... no, I just noticed you mentioned the idea on your talk page, and thought it looked interesting. I took a glance at your contributions, and found this page. If that counts as stalking, I don't know what to think. I'm sorry I even said anything. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I over-reacted, but I found your contributions in the recent fracas most unhelpful. I now feel nervous about editing MOSNUM and other style guides at all, so it's understandable that I might be stressed about your early questioning. Tony   (talk)  14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I completely understand. I'll leave you to get on with it without my interference. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you add bureaucrats to your page. Tennis expert (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And I suggest you make good with your "retirement". Not going your way is it? Apologies Tony that this stalking doesn't quit. And by all means watch me comply with guidelines, correct grammar and markup and tag the dozens of pitiful tennis articles with the maintenance tags they need. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be so obsessed with your own importance. I didn't have you in mind, actually.  I previously told Tony that I supported him about this admin watch, and I thought that "administrator" was underinclusive.  By the way, I couldn't care less about your correcting grammar, drive-by tagging of articles, or whatever else you do with your time.  And who is harrassing whom?  Tennis expert (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't you retired yet? And it is interesting that you don't care that you blind reverted my edits to introduce redirects, bad markup and incorrect grammar. As for tagging, I can't believe how long so many poor articles have been left untagged so I'm doing the right thing. Enjoy retirement. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tennis expert, where do I mail the golden watch? Tony   (talk)  08:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this proposal:
'''This section is being rewritten and reworded at the request of Tony1. The author is quite prepared to deal in good faith, but is simply NOT willing to deal with the almost certain harassment and intimidation attempts that invariably come with any proposal or discussion that shines the light of day on poor admin conduct, such as this incivil threat based on a different and contradictory portion of policy as I exercise my right to Segregation and security/#3 protection against harassment.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoWatches (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something - it seems as though you're saying that you're using an alternate account because you're aware that your actions here may lead to you being blocked. Am I correct? If so, that doesn't strike me as an acceptable reason to use a sock. And your claim that you are, "quite prepared to deal in good faith" is laughable coming after your assertion that, "admins are universally corrupt." Yes, some admins abuse their power; that's why we're here, to try to figure out a way to rectify the situation. Your little spiels are contributing absolutely nothing to the discourse, come across as petty, immature, vindictive, and uninformed, and are distracting us from actually addressing the problem. And if I may ask, is there any particular reason you don't sign your posts, or is it simply an oversight? faithless   (speak)  16:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am using an alternate account because I have no desire to be exposed to harassing emails or phone calls in regards to this discussion. I do sign my own posts, but the difference between and ~ is a typo, and I was really intending to post a longer bit once I'd actually rewritten the section (which you can see below) so I simply forgot when I was removing the old.
 * Regarding And your claim that you are, "quite prepared to deal in good faith" is laughable coming after your assertion that, "admins are universally corrupt." - I'm in much better faith than anyone who's already made a veiled threat to me here and happens to be an admin.WhoWatches (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that WhoWatches is unhappy. But what is not clear is what he wants. I have asked this before and I will ask again. WhoWatches, What do you want? Lightmouse (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do I want? I want wikipedia, in policy and wikiculture, to be repaired to what it needs to be to function correctly. I want the "dirty harry" subset of administrators either corrected or removed from adminship. I want embedded corruption, and the policies that have been put in to support same, removed. I want to see policies that exist, but are in practice, ignored by virtually every administrator to be enforced properly, on editors and admins alike.
 * A good start is to get a real grievance process for abused editors to actually be able to speak in their own defense against abusive administrators, which is what this project (even half-baked as it currently stands) has a slim chance of becoming. WhoWatches (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

- I find the following problems with this proposal:


 * 1 - We are all human and we occasionally make misjudgements; however, a small proportion of admins breach the policy governing their behaviour from time to time... - I disagree with the extent of the problem, particularly since by trying to institute this policy, we are admitting that the currently-existing channels to try to rein in bad admin behavior are largely meaningless and unhelpful at best. I find evidence of this given the number of bad-faith attempts already made to torpedo the proposal, such as the repeated MFD's. I further question, if the large number of administrators are indeed fair, why the "overwhelming majority" (necessarily present if a mere "small proportion" of admins breach process) do not speak up in defense of the ordinary, abused editors. I invite others who disagree with me (esp. Dweller), to explain why they think I am wrong, either here or at my talkpage, rather than making personal attacks upon me.


 * 2 - Many Wikipedians perceive that in practice these processes are ineffective; consequently, many users do not bother with the dispute resolution process. This is a disturbing understatement to me. There are current, structural problems as well as wikicultural ones that make it nigh-impossible for anyone to challenge a bad administrator action.


 * 3 - The proposal completely lacks a method for protecting reporting editors from admin reprisal ("how dare you report XXX, we'll get you for that"). The problem facing users today, and part of the reason that so many see the existing processes as pointless, is that even getting them entered without seeing the 100%-likely admin diatribe of "vexatious or trivial, so we'll block them for 'harassing' an admin or being 'disruptive' " (excessively common on WP:ANI even when the complaints, such as uneven application of the rules, are quite evident and easily investigated) is difficult. Whether you consider administrators to be acting in good faith or not, from the common user perspective, far too many have entered the school of "block first and don't ask questions" in the past three years, (assuming good faith) perhaps from reinforcement by the "echo chamber" of other administrators and perhaps simply from burnout.


 * 4 - The proposal also completely lacks a way to interact with the common worst-case scenario of administrator abuse, or to allow users who are on the receiving end of it to enter the resolution proceedings. The most common form today is that in which an administrator blocks an account (indefinitely or otherwise) and then proceeds to lock their talkpage as well.
 * This is counterproductive, because it gives the user no place to speak in their own defense. Being blocked for filing complaints to WP:ANI is bad enough (how would you feel if you went to the cops about one of their own doing 80 mph through a school zone repeatedly and were told "shut up, we don't want to hear it"???), but following up by locking a talkpage, no matter how crazy the rantings and ravings of the person (who by this time is likely feeling highly abused and needs some time to calm down and rant it out of their system), is only going to encourage them to become an IP vandal.
 * Further, the common excuses given for talkpage locking cause even more trouble. Locking for "filing too many unblock requests" runs up against a systemic problem in wikipedia, which is that those who are on unblock-patrol are simply not interested in actually investigating what is going on, never take seriously the notation that the block is in violation of policy (this is even now "policy" itself as listed at WP:GAB), and are simply there to try to keep the number of listings on CAT:RFU to a bare minimum. The problem here? Once it's been "cleaned" off CAT:RFU one has to do a needle-in-haystack hunt to find it. A user can easily file 3-4 unblock requests, desperately trying to find out what it is the unblock patrollers want to hear (not realizing there is no right answer), and then see their talk page locked for "wasting our time" - a true tragedy since it, all at once, makes the users even angrier (if the stonewalling didn't already) AND gives them even more incentive to hate wikipedia and become vandals out of mere angry vindictiveness.


 * 5 - I see no facility in this proposal to deal with abusive administrators who simply "humor" this process, decide they don't like the outcome, and either ignore the result, or worse yet, begin threatening the filing user and coordinator for the way the result turned out.

As for an example of admin conduct I would feel is abusive? I'll pull this one from the log:  15:41, 31 December 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked 92.3.172.138 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (: vandalism past final warning) Reasons that 55 hours is abusive?
 * 1) - The block is longer than the standard 24 hours.
 * 2) - The block was made with nobody doing anything but dropping templates on their talk page. Nobody could even take the time to make a simple hand-written explanation of WHY the edits were problematic, even after the block was in place.

55 hours, in this instance, is abusive. 24 hours, plus a handwritten note saying "hey, please read this and understand we're trying to follow policy here" would probably have come off MUCH better. I'll note that for some reason, administrators have all individually decided to place longer and longer blocks (see the block log); it used to be that 24 hours was the standard, now I see admins who are on 31, 55, etc... with no rhyme or reason. I submit that those who regularly exceed 24 hours probably need a reality check. WhoWatches (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still reading the details, but to respond to the primary point of LessHeard vanU's block, the IP was removing an AFD template from an article. AFD templates are placed to encourage communication and ensure interested parties know an AFD is in progress so that they might comment and/or improve the article.  The IP was clearly warned The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Waiting (Tina Moore song), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia, depending on when the AFD was timed to end, I might have blocked the IP to that time period to ensure a thorough discussion at the deletion discussion.  Just my opinion though.  MBisanz  talk 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't just blatantly state that admins are "abusive" just because they implemented longer blocks than you expect. Did you look at the context of the blocks? If the blocked editors were just blanking articles, then sure, 55 hours is excessive. But if they were impededing communication or posting defamatory comments on various talk pages, then a longer block may be justified. There is of course, the provision that repeat offenders (excuse the harsh wording) are subject to longer blocks. This process is intended to improve communication between admins and non-admins, not create ill feelings between them. I can't help but wonder why your experience with admins is so bad; the admins I have talked to are always polite and helpful. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking deeper: The AFD doesn't actually have a closure time listed (so no help there), the IP has relatively few contributions (looks like they were jumped on pretty much immediately). Again a case of WP:BITE in action, a simple 24-hour block would have done no harm and someone could always have reblocked if the offending conduct resumed. And again, a simple handwritten note (as opposed to the TEMPLATE TEMPLATE TEMPLATE TEMPLATE madness) would probably have done wonders. WhoWatches (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two schools of thought as to templates. One is espoused in WP:DTTR, the jist of which is that regular users already know the rules, so they don't need to have the detailed explanation of a template provides and a simple short message will do.  The other is WP:TTR which argues all editors are equal and templates provide a consistent way for communicating messages. Our warning templates at WP:UTM are specifically designed to be civil and informative, something that some peoplel making warnings may fail to do in haste and thus bite a new editor.  I have found that of the 1000s of warnings I have given, even experienced users respond better to a template than to a detailed personal message that they sometimes interpret as me taking too much interest in their activities and singling them out for personal admonishment.  MBisanz  talk 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some sympathy with your position WhoWatches – I find it bizarre to suggest as Dabomb87 appears to do above that longer and longer blocks are intended to improve communication between admins and non-admins, and I could point to many cases similar to the one you've cited here – but what's done is done. AdminWatch was never intended to deal with historical events, simply to make a new start in the evolving relationship between admins and non-admins. Where I do significantly disagree with you is in your proposition that all administrators are corrupt, or have become corrupted. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority try to do the best job they can. Admittedly that isn't always a very good job, and that's what AdminWatch is focused on addressing. It's in all our interests to make sure that incompetent, willy-waving administrators are in future held to account, openly and honestly. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I was talking about AdminWatch improving communication. I never said that longer blocks faciliate better communication, and if I implied that, I certainly did not mean that. When I said "impededing communication", I was referring to the example of the LessHeard VanU block—although I will concede that I hadn't really looked at the entire situation when I commented then, and 55 hours probably is excessive. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, in that case I agree with you. It was the "This process ..." following the longer and longer blocks sentence that fooled me. I clearly misunderstood the subject that "this" was referring to. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will note that the talk page of the IP in question seems to be littered with "last warning" templates, which doesn't exactly promote a welcome environment that we should have. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't anyone ask the admin concerned before making the assumption of abuse (other than it might reduce the possibility of OMZG DRAMAH by providing a reason)? For an exercise in investigating before pulling out the accusations, I suggest you look at the Waiting (Tina Moore song) article edit history and have a look at what the named account a little before the ip did and was warned for, and what the ip then did... If you need to be given the answer, then you are on the wrong page... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean this diff (actually collection of all three)? Seems we have two problems: the removal of the AFD template, AND the removal of other proposed sourcing later. Plus, you're still dealing with a pretty brand new user in either case. WhoWatches (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked the ip, remember, not the named account. The account is able to argue their case, the throwaway ip (or drama seeking ip, if AGF'ing it was another individual) cannot revert. If JLS2 does revert again, they get blocked, but instead they have to comply with guidelines because their ip cannot edit nor create a new account to edit. Now, why don't I put all this on the ip's talkpage - well, perhaps it will be assigned to someone in due course who will be put off by reading all that, and also I want to go back to AIV to see if there are any other fools up for abusing (this is from memory, but I reckon it was AIV work, since most of my blocking stats are from doing that patrol). BTW, my usual block period is 31 hours - 1 day + 7 hours - so they don't come back and do the same edit when they log on the next day, but allows the next individual a good chance of not getting caught by the block. You will note that I stated "extended" in my message in the template; I was assuming they knew the reason for the block. When you have a problem with a judgement call, have a word with the sysop concerned - even the ones who dislike having their considerations titled "abuse" are likely to explain themselves... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? You mean a new user getting the same template treatment too? The standard for wikipedia is supposed to be 24-hour blocks. If a user returns after the block and returns to the same behavior (and presuming that people have actually engaged them in dialogue rather than simply playing "block and don't talk"), then it's easy enough for you or someone else to reblock. Regarding "I was assuming they knew the reason for the block" - you know the old saw about when you assume something, correct?
 * No matter what else comes out of this conversation, I'd encourage you to rethink your abusive "default" 31-hour block and go to a standard 24-hour one. I'd also encourage you to actually communicate with users you block. WhoWatches (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would and do. WhoWatches (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Complainant?
Proposed "AdminWatch rules" say "AdminWatch expects good faith from all parties, which precludes the use of a sockpuppet account by a complainant". In light of what Tony is trying to achieve here, I suggest we drop the words 'by a complainant'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwhakahaere (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 December 2008


 * How might the admin complained about have been using a sockpuppet account? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find that a bit confusing. Some admins have alternate accounts that are out in the open. Are you, Kaiwhakahaere, saying that all admins must now stop using these accounts? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Those alternate accounts are not also administrative accounts. AdminWatch is only concerned with the abuse or misuse of administrative powers, not what any administrator may or may not do when logged in as a non-administrative user. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Same question as above: how does someone abusively blocked enter into Adminwatch proceedings? Even if they come in as an IP, AND admit to who they are, some abusive admin will just block the IP and revert them claiming they "can't edit" even to file a complaint, just like the same problem with every other dispute-resolution procedure currently in wikipedia: you have to get past the abusive-admin bouncers even to file. It is not a demonstration of "bad faith" for someone to try to seek a way to speak in their own defense. WhoWatches (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, it might be beneficial to have a checkuser actively involved in the process. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

@Malleus, 2nd par this section - If AdminWatch "expects good faith from all parties" then ref to sockpuppet account is superfluous. Adversarial too, when we are trying to offer all sweetness and light. (Sorry for forgetting to sign above. Was a long new year's eve celebration). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WhoWatches, an unblock template could be placed by the person concerned asking that they be unblocked for the purpose of making a complaint. If the talk page is locked because the account has been abusing it then there is always the email feature. If the email feature has been turned off because the account is abusing that by sending threating emails then I would suggest that AdminWatch has email set up with the address clearly stated so that a complaint can be sent there. It can then be posted here by one of the coordinators. It would be clearly stated that the address would be only for blocked users who have a locked talk page and email disabled, any other use would be abuse of the system and ignored. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything wrong with simply suggesting that a complaint under those circumstances (and only those circumstances) be emailed to one of the coordinators? I don't see the need to set up a separate email address (unless no coordinators happens to have chosen the email facility. Tony   (talk)  23:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because admins can, when blocking a user, set the block to stop them from sending email using the Wikipedia email function. It's an optional box that is unchecked by default. I've not used it very often but have re-blocked with it on after getting several abusive emails. Thus there would be something like "coord at email dot com" on the project page, that is not tied into the Wikipedia system. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; sounds good. Tony   (talk)  02:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

How is someone even to reach here if they are blocked but their talkpage NOT disabled? For that matter, what guarantee do we have that the coordinators will actually file the requests, instead of simply sitting on/ignoring them as the various existing wikipedia mailing lists and arbcom list do now? And re: WhoWatches, an unblock template could be placed by the person concerned asking that they be unblocked for the purpose of making a complaint. - I guarantee that the current crop of unblock-request watchers would never unblock for this reason, and likely even would become punitive and increase the block length or lock the talkpage (after removing the request) merely to stop the grievance being filed. WhoWatches (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"How is someone even to reach here if they are blocked but their talkpage NOT disabled?" I think that you are also talking the email function that can be turned on or off as I mention above, is that correct? If not can you explain what you mean. Any blocked user, no matter if their talk page is locked or not, can view any page on Wikipedia. Now I see that not only are you attacking admins, but Tony and now the coordinators, you really need to notch back what appears to me to be a dislike of everybody here at Wikipedia. Editors have been unblocked to file other requests and I really can't see why this process would be any different. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WhoWatches, the success of this process will depend on whether users like you and some of the more dubious admins assume good faith and try to cooperate with a positive attitude instead of thinking about everything that can go wrong. Yes, there are going to be some bumps, but they will be eventually be smoothed out; remember that AdminWatch will intially run on a trial basis only. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be proactive rather than the usual "well we have 18 different ways to file a grievance but they all amount to two things in reality: jack and s___" setup currently existing. It's named AdminWatch, we should watch for the things that can go wrong and plan for them. WhoWatches (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental problem: disconnects between how admins view their actions, and how their actions are viewed.
There is a fundamental problem here which I don't think is being addressed, and which I know is way too prevalent: admins, for whatever reason, often fail to grasp how their actions are being viewed from the other side of the fence. It may be a disconnect because many have never paid attention to etiquette at other places, and do not understand that the mention of using force invariably raises the temperature of a discussion ("going op" in IRC, etc) and causes problems.

A few examples: - Blocking during a content dispute. Wikipedia's got so many freaking block rules in so many different places, that it makes the head spin. Two that often wind up being pointlessly intertwined (and are almost universally mishandled) are WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. The problem here is that admins watch 3RR like a hawk, and 3RR is an "electric fence." Now imagine for a moment, just a moment, two sides of a content dispute that aren't interested in compromise or consensus (or at very least, believe that the other side is uninterested). Imagine that the dispute starts to attract "newcomers" from out of the blue... perhaps someone finds a notation of "hey this is going on" on someone else's talkpage, or notices a posting to a forum outside wikipedia, or just suspects that editors who are all-too-friendly on related pages are privately organizing with each other... and each side is, instead of editing nicely, simply trying to push the other side into the Electric Fence. Not just that, but both sides are probably listing each other at WP:AIV, WP:3RR, posting to friendly administrators' pages soliciting blocks, etc - after all, the goal is to get the other side blocked and thus gain control of the article.

Now, how is an admin merely enforcing 3RR going to look - whether it's legit or not? Pretty darn poor to whichever side they hit. This is itself bad enough, but it easily leads to the second problem.

- Ridiculous policies on talkpages and blocks. As I've been trying to point out, the biggest problem with each dispute resolution to date is the simply impossibility of being sure that an aggrieved user is actually able to interact with it. In the scenario above (and plenty of others), admins fail to take into account that merely mentioning the use of admin power - much less using same - raises the temperature of the conversation and makes it hostile. Once this heightened temperature mixes with a block, we have a user ranting, probably quite upset, and if you have any knowledge of human nature (which I'm pretty sure most admins lack) you'll understand that trying to talk someone out of a rant prematurely is, at least 90% of the time, an exercise in frustration. The first unblock request filed by someone in this state is probably going to be pretty darn nasty. Given time to rant themselves out, a user may calm down and reword themselves. Maybe they won't. But in either event, the use of more admin power is simply going to raise the temperature of the debate and make it less likely, not more, that they calm down and return to civility and editing standards. Yet, counterproductively, we have a large number of administrators who feel it is their duty to slap block-extensions, talkpage locks, and so on against users who are simply angry and need the time to rant themselves out. And of course, this goes largely unnoticed precisely because the use of blocks and talkpage locks - which are supposed to themselves be last resorts - have become ubiquitous and have the express purpose of trying to stop someone from talking.

CambridgeBayWeather asks "If you have a user who is abusing the unblock template or their talk page by asking to be unblocked while making threats or hurling abuse then what is supposed to happen?" - my answer is who really cares? They're on their own talk page. Nobody has to look at it. Nobody has to give a damn what they write. Leave them alone, and you have the "risk" they will just rant more, and the equal possibility that they will rant themselves out, quiet down, and get back in control of themselves. Lock the talkpage, on the other hand, and you not only validate their impression (wrong or right) that you are a partisan against them, that you are definitely trying to stop them from speaking, and you just make the situation worse. You take a 50% chance that they'll rant themselves out and reword themselves, and drop it to 0%.

Of course, then we have the third problem:

- Who decides what is civil or not? One of the biggest, most common disconnects we have is the perception (right or wrong, I personally consider it far more right than wrong) that nobody can even accuse an administrator of breaking the rules without a horde of administrators calling it "incivil" or "disruptive", blocks happening, etc. Someone up above mentioned another problem that contributes to this: the fact that any admin at all can slap any number of virtual scarlet letter marks (templates, blocks, etc) all over a user, while users have no easy way to point out missteps that the admin's made - you can see quite easily a list of the number of times a user's been blocked, for instance, but there's no equal method (even if the circumstances were fairly and reliably caught) to say that (for example) Admin X has made 33 bad blocks that needed to be rescinded so far.

When dispute resolution occurs, editors and administrators simply are not coming in on even footing. All it takes is one administrator to place one block for "incivility" during a dispute resolution process between an editor and another admin, and not only is the conversation broken and quickly turned into a "beat them while they're down" festival (especially on WP:ANI), but the trust of the editor towards administrators is probably irrevocably broken.

While it's nice to discuss "how does this process get around blocking" - the reality is that probably 99.99% of the issues coming to AdminWatch, at least at first, are going to involve the use of blocking and/or talkpage protection, partially because they are the easiest "tools" to abuse, partially because they are the tools with the largest impact, and partially because these tools lie at the core of every threat an administrator makes.

Anyhow, just something to think about. Maybe it'll give something good to be added to the question of how we interact with abused/blocked users. WhoWatches (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WW, I was going to scroll past this lengthy post, based on your previous agitated postings on this page. Ironically, because of the block imposed on you I went back to take another look. This time you make good points in a reasonable tone.
 * Electric fence: Yes, a valid concern. I've had first-hand experience with it. Worse still, the editor who reported me at the WP:AN3R noticeboard would not settle for the finding from the regular admin there ("No violation -- only three reverts") but kept whining until another administrator overruled the first one and issued a block threat against me. That case also demonstrates that admins can blithely ignore WP policy (such as the "three reverts" rule) when they feel like it.
 * Taser it until it stops moving: Also valid. Instead of applying more and more powerful electric shocks ("blocks"), admins should have the judgment to know when to let the bag lady with the shopping bag cart blow off steam. In disputes between users, admins should know when not to behave like basketball referees but like hockey refs instead: let them drop gloves and knock each other out. Or, in WP terms, protect the page and point them to the Talk page instead of throwing blocks at the editors.
 * Scarlet letter: Yes. How many times in the cesspool called AN/I have we seen the baying mob "endorse" a block on someone solely because of prior blocks?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WhoWatches blocked
For those that don't know already, has been blocked indefinitely by, with the reasoning: "You've had your fun, this is a disruptive single-purpose account, p[lease go back to your main account now. This account is blocked." Whilst this might be precisely the thing he is rallying against, it is within policy, especially related to sockpuppets solely used for policy debates. The unblock requests have been denied three times, one by myself. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A bad block, which should be rescinded. WhoWatches had just begun to calm down enough to make a reasoned argument (see above); so "disruption", even if he was engaging in it in the beginning, was no longer his goal. Too bad. That said, people should have the gumption to be posting under their regular user names. In response to a post I made on this page, I got a fairly silly complaint from admin Dweller on my Talk page (which could also be interpreted as a vague threat) but them's the lumps one takes; free speech isn't cost-free.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom has specifically ruled that accounts such as WhoWatches are inappropriate - how is it a "bad block?" faithless   (speak)  19:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The block justification according to above was "disruptive single-purpose account". I disagree with the justification and am therefore calling it a bad block.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the ArbCom decision Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings ("Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.") the block is correct. It can't be called a bad block purely because of the block message. Black Kite 19:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Segregation and security, point 3, which is the reasoning that User:WhoWatches uses to justify his sockpuppetry, only permit the use of a sock for editing controversial articles. This is a user subpage not an article. Plus it seems that ARBCOM has expressly forbidden the use of sock accounts for this purpose... -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Split Hairs Much? Jesus christ, the bad faith from admins and their stooges here is un-be-fucking-lievable. Hell, they even tried precisely the usual tricks and abuse afterwards. You all might as well just fucking give up. The block is complete shit for fabricated non-policy reasons, but that doesn't matter because this project threatens the entrenched abusive admins, therefore someone has to be made an example of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.113.136 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 January 2009
 * No, that is not it. Why don't you edit from your main account? The protection of your talkpage was undone within 4 minutes. Blocked users are not generally given 5 unblock requests from 5 different admins. You have protested, that account is not being unblocked, please return to the normal account. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The posting above yours Woody simply emphasises the point that blocks tend to escalate situations, not defuse them. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Before anyone complains, I've blocked the IP not for anything it's said, but because it's a TOR account. Black Kite 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't much care what ArbCom has or has not decided about cases such as this one, or what the rules are claimed to be governing cases such as this one. Common sense ought to take priority over slavish adherence to some arbitary set of rules, and so I completely agree with Goodmorningworld's opinion that this was a "bad block". What has it achieved exactly? What damage was WhoWatches causing? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Take your grievances elsewhere please; this is not the appropriate forum. If you have a problem with the system go try and "fix" it some place else. Thanks. Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh? What's your problem big fella? Gonna threaten to block me because you don't like my opinion? Give it a rest, please. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I don't quite like your tone, sir. I must respectfully ask you to stop it. Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like your tone either, but if you stop with your silly comments then so will I. Deal? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This section needs closing off. It has nothing to do with the proposed process but has turned into complaints about current policies. Those complaints need to be taken elsewhere. Or this section moved to a subpage so that those editors who want to discuss the process can continue to do so. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sick of the whole thing. I agree that Segregation and security, point 3 does not apply here, for the very reason given above (this is not "an article"). WP needs to take its policy language seriously, just as "black-letter" rules are taken seriously and their interpretation argued over in the real world. If we find that the policy language is problematic in our execution of policy, we use the experience to refine the language or to change it entirely: this is a healthy feedback mechanism that we should get used to. I suspect that AdminReview (probably the new name of this process) will, from time to time, provide exactly that type of feedback in relation to the language of several policies. It is fundamentally a legalistic process, for the protection of all parties.

I agree that this needs to be closed off; soon I'll remove the whole WhoWatches saga into a cap. WhoWatches has undermined his/her case by the use of the sock. My only concern is that the block (legal as it appears to be) has failed to solve the problem; I do not want to see this user become a vandal, where all other options for letting off steam have been removed. That is the systemic disadvantage in blocking. Tony  (talk)  04:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I commented at WP:ANI about this. I'm totally with Goodmorningworld - it was in accordance with the letter of the law, but doesn't necessarily make it the cleverest move in the world, either. You shouted 'don't move, or I'll shoot'. He moved, and you shot. It should have been a case of WP:IAR instead of Jean Charles de Menezes. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Got one already
Abusive admin: User:MHLU just did this. WhoWatches (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * User:MHLU is not an admin. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) First of all MHLU isn't an admin, see here. Second putting a tag/template/warning on your talk page is hardly an example of abuse. Frankly if this is the kind of frivolous complaint that we are going to see then this project will get killed very quickly. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Frivolous complaints will simply be removed forthwith. They will just be a nuisance, not a threat, to the process. Tony   (talk)  01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeas, you are right. Probably getting a bit frustrated with the ongoing nonsense being posted. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I amend: abuse by multiple people who wouldn't even be civil enough to inform me they were talking about me. Not just that, but leaving threats (especially unfounded threats) is pretty definitively a violation of WP:CIVIL. WhoWatches (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no threats, just a concern about you expressed by D.M.N. who is not an admin. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This process has to do with perceived admin abuse. Discussing you on WP:ANI is not admin abuse, especially seeing as how the original poster is not an admin either. Nor are they required to notify you but it is suggested that they do so. Leaving a tag/template/warning on your talk page is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. However, if you think that it is then go to Wikiquette alerts which is the correct place. Agin this page is form perceived admin abuse, that is the use of admin tools to abuse another user. If I was to suddenly block you that would be a form of admin abuse but saying that you are now begining to be disruptive is not. That is a comment by me as an editor and does not require the use of my admin bit. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)