User:Tony1/AdminReview/Training ground

DRAFT PAGE

This page is for practicing the handling of complaints brought to AdminReview. It is NOT a talking shop. Every case should be processed STRICTLY according to the mechanism set forth in User:Tony1/AdminReview. Ongoing complaints being discussed at AN/I, another noticeboard, an RfC/U or any other venue MAY NOT be handled here, to avoid tainting ongoing proceedings elsewhere. Only past cases for which a disposition has been entered are allowed here. Hypothetical cases are also allowed.

An example of applying the focused AdminReview procedure is here. Remember, AdminReview is based entirely on Wikipedia policies. If you cannot find a WP policy to support your handling of a case, chances are you need to start over. Happy practicing!

Case #1:

See these two pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikipedius_Reparo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Histopher_Critchens

Notice anything? Check their contributions. A small amount of one-sided reverting, but Critchens removed almost all of Reparo's edits as well. Reparo offered up a pretty compelling case for an IP being responsible for wholesale vandalism, and the response from corrupt boob Connelly was to indef-block reparo and attack Critchens. And of course, along comes FisherQueen, to "seal the deal" with the ridiculous comment "You look so much like the same user that I can't justify unblocking you."

Yet another instance of abusive blocking and more abusive rubber-stamping of the blocks, and Wikipedia is two more editors down thanks to abusive administrators and a complete lack of any honest ones.

Of course, Tony will probably just remove this post. After all, AdminReview is just a fraud, never actually intended to go live or improve anything.

Case # :

For historical purposes, example cases originally posted and discussed on User talk:Tony1/AdminReview are included below. These were free-form discussions, which are now discouraged. Please practice your handling of a case strictly according to User:Tony1/AdminReview and comment on others' handling on User talk:Tony1/AdminReview/Training ground.

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.

---

Please do not post in this section. The posts below are included merely for historic purposes.

Example to contemplate

Tony, I've got an example I'd like to run by to see what you think of it. We had an admin, who had been an admin for a long time, who was refusing to communicate (wouldn't edit a talk page even) and was edit warring. So after the AN thread I went to Arbcom asking them to act on a Request_for_desysop_and_block_of_administrator_Hemanshu. They thought there was no issue and to go file an RFC, which I did at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu. He didn't respond and there was a unanimous consensus at the RFC to desysop him. When he resumed edit warring, Ryan Poss took it back to Arbcom at Hemanshu where there was still significant resistance from Arbcom to desysopping him. Only after someone noticed some edit warring by another account that looked similar and filed an SSP and the SSP clerk sent it to RFCU, did Arbcom feel the need to act. How would AdminReview have helped in this case of documented admin abuse? What ways do you think this case should have been handled differently? MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah the irony

MBisanz refers to an RfC filed by him on an editor for, essentially, linking dates against consensus.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, yes, he was edit warring against consensus and refusing to communicate. Sometimes being an fair administrator means taking actions against both sides of a dispute when each side is violating a policy. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure it is MBisanz and please forgive me my levity. It simply occurred to me that in your quest to play Inspector Javert to Tony's Jean Valjean, you are doggedly pursuing him for, well, delinking dates according to consensus, that's all.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is new...

Seeing here:

"I believe that the additional extended block violates the longstanding policy that we let blocked people vent a bit on their user talk page. While I am opposed to incivility, and this clearly was some grossly abusive incivility on BigDunc's part, blockees are not expected to be perfectly gracious about being blocked. The incivility was restricted to BigDunc's talk page and talk page edit summaries.

I'm going to leave an intent to unblock note on Tnzaki and Deacon's talk pages along with a pointer here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)"

What "longstanding policy" is he referring to? I have never seen that happen before - quite the reverse, admins will jump down anyone's throat and deliberately try to provoke "incivil" comments and unblock requests in order to justify bad/extended blocks and talkpage locks all the time. WW,QuisCustodio 09:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It was enshrined at one of the (many) Giano/ArbCom referrals; G was blocked, who said what he thought of such an action and the person executing it and somebody else extended the block for the "incivility" - it was recorded in the ArbCom that there is latitude given to the recipient of a block immediately after the fact (i.e. letting off steam). A couple of admins have been recently criticised and sanctions reversed for this aspect of "baiting". Perhaps someone can provide links? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, rather than baiting, good admins work by trying to establish rapport with users who might be or have been blocked. That does the project a favour by stemming the loss of good editors. (Some good editors err from time to time and thus incur blocks.) Tony (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what this comment has to do with helping move this process forward? Should the question not have been put to User:Georgewilliamherbert? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, Cambridge. Tony (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This illustrates one of the basic problems of wikipedia - how is anyone supposed to know what the "regulations" and "rules" are when they are spread over so many different "policy pages", "essays", and "decisions" that even the policy wonks don't know where to find half of them? How the hell do we expect a new, or even just normal, editor to survive attack from the admin clique when the "law" is that hard to understand or even get hold of for a reading? WW,QuisCustodio 02:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again I am not sure what that comment has to do with this process and how it will further its progress. Please stay on topic. Questions like yours would be better off at one of the pages listed at Help:Contents/Communication and of those the best would probably be Wikipedia:Help desk. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue that is ended but raises interesting points:

A case of Scarlet Letter in action.

Another user also points out their own mini-essay on Scarlet Letter harassment

I worry that AdminReview is going to easily turn into a spot that can be swayed by this. After all, one side is going to be admin. The other side? Abused, threatened, and pushed around. Every time someone lodges a "complaint", especially when an admin lodges a "complaint" against a non-admin, it's logged. Whether or not it was legitimate, or whether or not it's true, or whether or not it's been retracted? Doesn't matter. Wikipedia is full of poorly-sourced nonsense that is the result of "sourcing" a newspaper story from page 1, when the retraction was printed in 5-point font on page 48q in the sunday edition right between the "SWF seeks SWM" want ads, and a diff taken out of context is no different.

The end result, sometimes the end goal of sophisticated harassers, is to destroy the reputation of editor A, by creating an image of him among the community that he is "often criticized", leading to a mistaken impression that "if he is so often criticized, he must have done something wrong". - the very definition of common admin behavior, the Scarlet Letter Harassment. WW,QuisCustodio 15:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First example: The blocking admin issued an unqualified apology.

Like this will EVER matter should the user later be tarred and feathered and hit with a "well you've been blocked X number of times so you're obviously not worth keeping" brush? Not just that, but the apology was only issued AFTER an incredible amount of luck in which a number of people publicly shamed the blocking admin into admitting he messed up (and even so, look at the number of other corrupt people SUPPORTING the outrageous block). WW,QuisCustodio 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The mini-essay: Did he mean to write "over-emphasized"?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The blocking admin apologized both on the noticeboard and on the blocked-then-unblocked user's Talk page. All of this is on the record. Also on the record is the unblocked user's edit summary, "William M. Connolley is a great man to be able to admit a mistake. Now let's put this unfortunate incident behind us." If the user can move on, the rest of us should be able, too.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And yet another section that appears to have nothing to do with the purpose of this page and in no way can help the process to move forward. It seems to me that all these comments do is turn this page into another mini-ANI/AN. Please read the sentence at the top of the page "This is not a page for letting off steam about any Wikipedian or class of Wikipedians." I suggest that if you want a forum to complain about admins on Wikipeida then find a chat room someplace. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge, when Tony gets his head above water he may decide to remove this section or put it on a new sub-page, I don't know and can't speak for him. Please be patient, he's up to his ears in remunerative work at the moment. As for me, I'm in favor of Monday-morning quarterbacking that would serve as practice for when AdminReview goes live, but on a separate page from this. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I know Tony is busy and realise that not everybody is as lucky as I am and can edit from home and work. That said, I was just going to leave the section here, as I did the last two times QuisCustodio posted remarks that were off topic and of no help to the process. I leave it entirely in Tony's hands as to the remarks being here or removed. However, I feel that QuisCustodio is doing what a lot of people say is the problem with AN/ANI, in that topics get off dicussion and the original problem gets ignored. If the criticism is about this process then fine, post it here. If on the other hand the sort of remarks that QuisCustodio is currently making will be permitted after the fact then the process will turn into AN/ANI and will die an early death, which I think will be unfortunate for all. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be another attempt by WW to draw the Admin Review crowd into yet another recent debate (it may be "closed", but it just happened a couple of days ago). QuisCustodio has dressed up this post to make it appear as though it's relevant to the Admin Review process, but has quickly just degenerated into more of his sock ranting about admins, making us all look bad. The issue here is basically; should unlawful block records be redacted? This is not the relevant place to discuss this. Ryan4314 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... the bad-faith garbage from Cambridge and Ryan above seems to me to be another attempt by admins and admin-wannabes who are "participating" in AdminReview In Bad Faith, trying to stop REAL discussion that would make this a better proposal.

The issue here is basically, how do we ensure that the AdminReview process does not become vulnerable to the sort of character assassination that is so common on Wikipedia, including (but not limited to) Scarlet Letter harassment and the creation of false/bad-faith "complaints" against a user that are very, very vulnerable to someone pulling diffs out of context. WW,QuisCustodio 16:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why not say that in the first place. Why post rants that appear to have nothing to do with this process but just seem designed to attack and belittle other editors. Even when you do have a point to make you still can't resist making attacks, but at the same time you expect others to remain calm and polite. I suggest that you reflect on the phrase "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and lol at ur attempt to troll me; "wannabe-admin". If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm the exact opposite, unfortunately we can't reflect on ur contributions to the project, because you're hiding behind a sock. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Break out unrelated

Based on the comments by Cambridge and Ryan above, may I propose that we try to agree on separate sub-pages to be set up?

This page: Discussion of improvements and clarifications to the wording of the AdminReview guideline.

Reading room: Links to essays and other material pertinent to AdminReview, with discussion of same.

Training ground: Use past cases (or even made-up cases) to practice application of the AdminReview guideline.

Going public: Discussion of how and when to bring AdminReview to the attention of the community.

Elections: Mechanics of electing the AR coordinators.

Other:

Any editor who discovers extraneous material posted to any of the separate pages may move or delete it without discussion.

Please comment below, thanks.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with one exception. The only people that should remove extraneous material is Tony or someone(s) that he agrees should remove the remarks. I think otherwise we may end up with edit wars over what should and should not be removed. Once the process goes live then the coordinators can remove such material. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this, some sort of joke? Yet another bad-faith method of trying to make sure that actual discussion to improve the process is stifled? Or is it just that I was the one trying to bring up points that need to be addressed to ensure that the process is fair and not tainted by the same garbage that taints the rest of Wikipedia's so-called "dispute resolution", aka the kangaroo court system? WW,QuisCustodio 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quis, I'd really appreciate it if you took a more constructive role here. Please do not post overwhelmingly negative messages.

GMW et al., thanks for your structural suggestion—sounds like a good idea. My comments ... I'll do something this w/end:

• This page: Discussion of improvements and clarifications to the wording of the AdminReview guideline. [yes]

Reading room: Links to essays and other material pertinent to AdminReview, with discussion of same. [how many are there; I wonder whether it might be preferable to list them all in the "See also" section at the bottom of the actual AdminReview page.

Training ground: Use past cases (or even made-up cases) to practice application of the AdminReview guideline. [yes ...you mean practice by the coordinators, or to fine-tune the design of the process beforehand?]

Going public: Discussion of how and when to bring AdminReview to the attention of the community. [not a separate page, surely?]

Elections: Mechanics of electing the AR coordinators. [yes]

I'm sorry I've been pre-occupied by both real-life work (so highly pressured that I now regularly have Skype sessions with clients abroad booked after midnight), and by this frightful ArbCom thing. After the grant-application deadline of 4 March, I'm free for a month or so, and will be able to devote time to gaining some kind of consensus here for the outstanding issues in the process and for the design of the election. I think it won't be hard for us to design a significantly better process than the unprofessional mess that masquerades as ArbCom's judicial hearings. You just do the direct opposite of what they do. Tony (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this "problem" has only risen due to a sock (QuisCustodio) venting his anger, can't we just get him blocked again. JzG blocked his last account "WhoWatches", anyone disagree? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

JzG is also one of the most abusive admins you'll ever meet, so no surprise there. He's like a walking textbook on the kind of things AdminReview is intended to help change/correct/stop. WW,QuisCustodio 03:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe its necessary to block QC. The user appears to be involving himself/herself in the discussion in a sensible and sincere manner, and is not causing any disruption. After all, we are still brainstorming, so I would say we are open to ideas to see where potential pitfalls lie, so that a good process can be developed. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you there Ohconfucius, four days ago WhoWatches said; "Whatever you say, admin. Do I bow down and kiss the boots now or later?" (sensible and sincere?). He's also had one of his threads removed by Tony recently (disruption?). Ryan4314 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The "problem" is trying to make this a viable process, something I see you are completely uninterested in achieving, Ryan. Looking at what is being proposed, I have no objections provided this isn't simply a trick by someone like Ryan trying to remove relevant data and neuter the proposal. Tony is well right to say that AdminReview is going to need to only accept cases that occur after it goes live. At the same time, we can't ignore past incidents, especially when there's plenty to learn from them - common admin behavior, common problems that plague users, and common flaws in the existing system that need to be avoided. WW,QuisCustodio 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've supported Admin Review since day 1, you however called Tony naive for starting it. I don't like the fact that you hide behind a sock while the rest of us are here honestly. Nor that you post links to current debates hoping to draw us all in like we're your private anti-admin army. Anyone who checks your edit history (and that of your other sock account "WhoWatches") will see that that you're just here to let off steam. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please hold off on blocking the ungrammatically-named "Quis Custodio" (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes would have been the correct quote). He alternates between lucid, useful posts and paranoid rantings. As long as we can manage to agree to ignore the latter, I say he can stay.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why should we have to though? We're all using our proper accounts, and we've all contributed with "lucid, useful posts", so why should he get special treatment? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet another...

Pikacsu debacle

Points in question:

1. 1 - Plenty of POV to spread around in all directions, but the pro-Obama crowd is happy to involve admins and happy to claim that posting things that aren't positive about Obama, and try to argue for their inclusion to the article on the talk page, is "disruption."

1. 2 - revert-warriors removing the user's comments (which do Not appear to include Personal Attacks, do not qualify as WP:BIO violations, or otherwise violate Wikipedia policy) from the talk page and then claiming "disruption" when he puts them back.

1. 3 - Plenty of baiting, prodding, and pushing. Seems obvious someone was just trying their best to annoy/WP:BITE the guy into making personal attacks so they could justify more bad behavior.

Discussion? Would this be a good, or poor, test case for AdminReview? Is there something I'm missing on how this sort of POV pile-on against a single user is somehow justified in policy? WW,QuisCustodio 03:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pikacsu (talk · contribs) is possibly a newcomer, probably from the USA, and with a very anti-US government bent. A quick look at this user's edit history will reveal that this is a single purpose account whose actions were only on the Obama talk pages, but are borderline trolling. If used as an adminreview case, I would expect it to fall at the first hurdle. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Second thoughts, it's not 'borderline'. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference between a "troll", and an editor trying to make wikipedia better, is that you don't agree with the so-called "troll" POV. There is quite a lot of room to make legitimate complaint about bias in favor of Obama (just like Wikipedia had/has an incredibly tough time with anti-Bush bias). Unfortunately, the talk page for pretty much every Obama-related page has degenerated into a shout-down and exercise of the usual pattern: lack of real communication, deliberate goading (designed to make the user react negatively and violate WP:NPA), and a series of quickly lengthening "blocks" not based on trying to bring the user into the editing process, but deliberately designed to shut out their voice.

What makes this sadder is that you didn't even pay attention to what was going on, you just took the word of the tilted ANI pile-on crew. WW,QuisCustodio 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break please, will you? I read those edits - it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with what that editor's point of view. There is just no other word to describe what it was. Simple. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To admins watching this page...

This may not be completely topical, but I thought it might be interesting to see the potential responses. A user has inserted some information into Warren Buffett that is not completely encyclopedic. After being reverted, this user proceeded to revert again. Even during discussion, this user reverted a revert (and thus reached the 3RR limit). This (new) user seems to be a single-purpose account. Even though consensus is so far against him, he maintains that his edit is right. He has also made a borderline uncivil / bad faith comment. What would you do here? Take him to ANI? Block (probably excessive)? Warn him? Revert? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL and warn. If problems don't cease, block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Warned as explained. I can't block, I'm not an admin. The user has not violated 3RR yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's already at four reverts with 1, 2, 3, and 4. Gary King (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does it look more to me like someone's trying to pick a fight with this user quite deliberately? I mean, yeesh, there's no "consensus" evident on the talkpage, and both sides have valid reasons for wanting what they want. You're all guilty of edit warring, learn to play with others. WW,QuisCustodio 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say WP:NOT is pretty good reasoning, and the point is that the user has violated the WP:3RR policy. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, from where I sit the user appears to have been taunted and goaded into violating 3RR, a typical edit-warrior tactic based on gaming the system. That you (in the plural sense, "your side") just taunted them into it and then went running for an admin tells me you're more interested in playing games and trying to trick someone into getting blocked, than in working to make a better encyclopedia. WW,QuisCustodio 03:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also: alphabet soup arguments don't sway me. Try actually writing/quoting what portion of WP:NOT you feel is relevant, and why, rather than throwing around acronyms trying to confuse people into thinking you may be right. WW,QuisCustodio 03:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You're very organized in your taunting and game-playing to get an admin to involve their powers for the benefit of your "side" in a content dispute. WW,QuisCustodio 04:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did, at the user's talk page. Anyway, you may want to peruse Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_further_input_regarding_the_addition_of_stock_information_to_Warren_Buffett , which I did not post. In fact, I posted here for advice so that ANI could be avoided. The other user did not seem to think it was sufficient. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting for further input on a neutral board. Where else should I go? The other option is 3RR, but I do not wish to have the user blocked when we could just form a consensus and be done with it. Gary King (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No contradiction intended. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, it also appears that the user might have a COI with the website they are using to reference. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into the content dispute, I'm surprised the user wasn't blocked per WP:IU, or at the very least asked to change his/her username. faithless (^speak) 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

See here. Gary King (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As this does not concern admin behaviour at all, I'd say this conversation is off-topic for AdminReview. We can solve this one. We should just find out what this editor wants - if it's because xhe saw the necessity of replacing a similarly unencyclopaedic information (which was there before) with better stuff, we can still talk. If this is a link from WP to his website, then we can/should not oblige. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2009 (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.