User talk:Tony1/AdminReview/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

December 2008

Hope I'm not out of line by posting here, but just wanted to register my support for this project. Will you let me know when it's up please :) Ryan4314 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please keep at this, it's important. Some of the admins on Wikipedia remind me of the hunchbacked, bald-headed, black-uniformed henchmen in The Incal by Jodorowsky and Moebius. What irks me especially is to see new admins fresh off their RfA "make their bones" on AN/I by publicly declining an unblock request with some F-U boilerplate ("I Have Reviewed Your Unblock Request and Determined it to be Unfounded.") Blechhh. On the other hand, there are good admins who make good calls but get unfairly attacked.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you both for your support. I need to finish the draft quickly, I can see, now that word is out prematurely. Problem is, I have little time right now. Give me a few days and I'll formally ask for feedback. Tony (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to add my voice of support. If there's any way I can be of help, do let me know. This is a very interesting and I think, largely workable draft proposal. Well done. Tiamut^talk 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by FT2

The idea that administrator standards should be easily questioned when poor, is no bad thing in theory. I personally favor high admin standards, and this seems to be trying to prevent "gaming" or poorly founded requests, by allowing only certain categories of issue to be raised. However there are some serious issues or points to think about while developing the concept. Without supporting or opposing, some comments on the proposal:

1. The single huge exposure here is "forum shopping". That is, a user has raised a complaint at ANI, on their talk page or such, this gives the appearance of "one more venue to complain at". For example a user gets blocked, do they now request unblock, or do they ask someone else to post here about the blocking admin and how biased it was? You want to be very careful to ensure it isn't hit with a large amount of that kind of thing, because claims of bad adminship by disgruntled or blocked users (that turn out spurious on checking) are quite common. A simple means might be as follows:

   • all requests go into a "new requests" section for (say) up to 5 days. If any admin is prepared to endorse there's a concern, then it gets opened under the process. Otherwise after 5 days if not one admin can be found to agree, then forget it.
   • put in a provision against forum shopping. "This is not an appeal process" and explain where it fits in between ANI and RFC and so on. When should users use this, and when would another process be better?

2. The draft title is a problem, as is its implication. "Administrator action review" would be a more neuutral title. "Admin Watch" sounds like a stalkers paradise, and isn't really what your proposal seems to suggest anyway.
3. Bear in mind many complaints may be by users who are disruptive, against quite experienced admins who are very used to spotting disruption.

   • Will your "co-ordinators" have the experience to assess the admin's view? Or (worst case) will it just annoy other admins active in the crucial task of protecting editorial work against disruption, to be asked to justify what to a seasoned user is obvious stuff, that's being forum-shopped by a tendentious disruptive user, and judged by users who may not have the experience needed? (Any admin decision should be able to be justified, but just like experienced content writers "can all see obvious stuff" in an FAC, so experienced admins who deal with certain kinds of disruption can usually "see the obvious stuff" in certain behaviors.) Note: the suggestion made at #1 may basically deal with some of these issues.
   • What would the qualifications of your "co-ordinators" be, or your own qualifications to choose them initially?

4. Any dispute resolution process needs to consider its own stance. You will need to show ways you will ensure fairness. And avoid the risk of "lynch mob" mentality either way, developing. Will the co-ordinators themselves start to show "group-think" if it's a small closed circle? Why would a "co-ordinator" reviewing an admin be expected to be any fairer than any other user? It'll need that for any hope of credibility and use.
5. Why wouldn't existing routes be adequate to the task, when a concern arises?
6. Be aware that new proposals like this only have a slight chance of passing. Wikipedia is developed by users, so new ideas are worthwhile, but if after much effort, the community doesn't buy it, you would probably have to let it go at some point.
7. Will this add excessive bureaucracy or WP:CREEP to the project?
8. Do you propose to WP:OWN any of this process if it goes live? (Eg choosing new "co-ordinators"?) If not what will happen instead? Consider looking at the Mediation Committee or the less formal Mediation Cabal, or Wikiquette alerts for how this might better work.
9. What's the conclusion of a case? How is consensus formed? What if there is disagreement by the administrator or other admins? "One of our co-ordinators looks at it"... and then what?

Some thoughts. Higher standards are definitely never a bad thing. But the above are immediate observations. Have a think about them, and see if they suggest any ways to improve the draft concept.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's interim response: Thanks for your comments, FT2, which I have no time right now to respond to fully. That must wait about 12 hours. Just for now, I'll deal with Points 1 and 2.

Point 1: The proposed structure does indeed have a "new requests" section (Stage 1), where coordinators decide on the merits of each. The options for their actions are set out below the subtitle. Yes, there is room to write in more detail governing what constitutes a vexatious/trivial notification. The large list of behavioural requirements that have been extracted from the policy page need to be analysed from the perspective of the boundary between what is vexatious/trivial and what is not; therefore, it may be that some of those requirements need to be footnoted to examples. But I'm wary of editorialising the wording of the Admin Policy page. Policy is policy.

The idea of asking a police officer (even just one) to endorse a complaint against one of his/her fellow officers defeats the whole purpose of this process.

I think your suggestion of guarding against "forum shopping" is worth looking at. Don't forget that complainants will have to specify which of the policy tenets the admin has breached; this will need to be illustrated by diffs, and possibly diffs/text briefly reporting a history of similar behaviour of the admin. (Some of the policy wordings use words such as "repeated", etc).

On your Point 2, the title says exactly what the process is: the strongest muscle that we as civilians have (in userspace, if you please) is (1) naming and shaming, or at least putting an admin "on watch" for a specified period, and (2) ensuring that the process adheres to the two tenets of natural justice ... what are they? Um ...

• everyone has a right to a hearing; and
• justice must be seen to be done.

If "watching" is our method, so be it. If the community wants to get serious about instituting—in practice, not just in theory—the kind of punishment measures that admins mete out to civilians every day, that would be far better, but it would need to be done properly, and not be subject just to the call of admins. Tony (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Point 3: Forum shoppers and "tendentious disruptive users" should be dismissed in Stage 1 (that is what that stage is for; it's a filter before we take a complaint seriously). Annoying other admins is way down my list as an issue: AdminWatch, however, will try to cause little or no disruption to the project. Skills and experience of coordinators: that will be a challenge—we have to learn somehow, and we have to be brave. It's easy to see why people have done nothing about this unsatisfactory situation for so long, but the time has come. It's not a mediation service, by the way: it's to assess whether admin policy has been breached—to what extent and whether there's a history of it by the same admin. It's not punitive in intent (perhaps that needs to be stated on the page ...). Tony (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those in favor of this process need to answer the crucial question: "how is this venue different from a block review at WP:AN/I?". Also, I agree with the naming change proposal of FT2 (point 2 above). Pcap ping 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see this as a "sharing page" for examples of sloppy adminship. Examples:

1) there is sometimes a problem with admins who claim policy reasons for things but refuse to elaborate, and refuse to answer even straightforward questions as to how these policies would apply in different circumstances. Putting up such examples here enables others to say either "Complainant Z is being a wiki-lawyering nuisance" or "This is the answer and Admin X should have told you" or "Admin X is trying to bully you into accepting an edit that has no basis in policy".

2) Another use for this board would be exposing examples of duplicity - "Admin X let editor Y off a 3RR block with a pat on the head but blocked editor Z for 3 days."

3) Or ... how about the sometimes severe problem of POV-pushing under the guise of policy? I came across an example of an admin who wanted one particular date (of two significant choices) used in an article. It turned out that both possibilities were in the source - but the admin claimed that was alright, because the source was RS so he could have exactly whatever he wanted there. Duh?

It's tough being held to account for your decisions in life, but admins who do things sloppily and/or play games are damaging the product of our efforts. None of my examples are individually important enough to make a federal case - but that's why a noticeboard would be a valuable resource that might help uncover just how much of this is going on. PR^talk

I would suspect that the information at WP:Admin abuse pointing users at WP:ANI and WP:RFC/ADMIN would handle all of the circumstances you describe rather well, as would such processes as WP:WQA, WP:3O, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN. What benefit does this page have on all of those? MBisanz ^talk 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz: that is very simple to answer: it won't be run by admins (or at least it won't be dominated by them). It has been made necessary because the current "official" processes are a sham. Admins support each other—hadn't you noticed? We need a NPOV process that is run by the community as a whole, not by admins, who can't be allowed to judge themselves (that would be like allowing the police to run internal investigations on misbehaviour or transgressions of policy without external review. Tony (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How is WP:RFC/ADMIN, which is a complaint filed by any user against an admin and usually dominated by non-admin comments a process run by admins? Also, seeing as there are about 1,000 active admins and 10,000 active users, it is unlikely that any given process is dominated by administrators. Also, the similarly styled WP:OmbCom was rather strongly rejected by the community twice. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting; I'll look it up later to try to learn from its mistakes. I wonder whether it failed because it started in WP space and was subject to death by committee (a committee of hundreds). Here, the advantage is that it's in civilian userspace and can be shaped by a smaller team. That might be a more effective way of setting up a good system; once the kinks are ironed out, it will succeed or fail on the basis of whether the community likes it—that is a strong incentive for us. Gotta go. Tony (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the final decisions about administrators are made by administrators, often with little regard given to the comments made by non-administrators. When administrators protect each other under the excuse of mutual respect or refusing to engage in wheel warring, the whole process breaks down, especially the core Wikipedia policy about consensus. And aside from this problem, there is the equally serious problem of some administrators not bothering to provide advance notice before blocking or banning non-administrators. Tennis expert (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Correcting this -- wheel warring isn't consensus (or consensus-seeking). It's the attempt to use force to obtain one's way, and to misuse tools provided for quality purposes, to do so, when it is clear there is significant disagreement. In that case what admins should do is switch to dialog and if needed, dispute resolution. It's to ensure they do, that wheel warring is treated seriously. High standards count, and "talk, don't fight" is the essence of many Wikipedia standards. "Refusing to engage in wheel warring" as a problem? No. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My comments need no correction. An administrator's reversal of another administrator can have either of two motivations: (1) ensure that administrative action reflects consensus; or (2) as you suggested, "attempt to use force to obtain one's way." Too often, administrative action does not reflect consensus, and other administrators are afraid to correct that action because of the wheel warring admonition or the misguided, clubby nature of administrators in general. Tennis expert (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, some comments above are a problem. We aren't engaging in civil war here, we aren't playing "police vs. civilians", and administrators are appointed at the rate of many a month based on a communal poll at which any user can have equal say (and non-administrators outweigh administrators and are not shy to speak). So as soon as these everyday users, who were deemed trustworthy by a wide range of the community, are appointed, they become "police" and need "civilians" to "watch" them? Not really. I think some parts of the idea have legs, and surely some admins need to raise their standards. But a lot of the above is seriously disappointing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are the people that watch the Wikipedia "police"? Oh, right, other police. That doesn't work in the real world and doesn't work here. Tennis expert (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony's invocation of the Stanford Prison Experiment on the AdminWatch page is relevant. A modicum of real or perceived power can transform an ostensibly "trustworthy," reasonable or nice person into an abusive bully.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch personnel

I foresee a problem with them being initially selected by Tony. This could become a bone of contention that derails introduction of what I see as a major improvement over the present situation. It might be a good idea to think about a process for electing Watchers that attracts the best and brightest.
Apart from that, I really like the progress you are making here. Pulling together relevant information that was spread out over different pages is good. Also the focus on treating editors respectfully. The reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment is NOT hyperbole. In a pre-academic age, it was just common knowledge, known as "human nature".--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The recruitment of coordinators was always going to be an issue. I'm not happy exposing their selection to the potential for distortion in an "election"—not yet, anyway. It's still in user-space, don't forget. I also want to get it running and refine it before making a big deal over that process. Another problem I foresee is that a community-wide election would have to exclude admins and bureacrats from election (that's the whole point), whereas I am free to invite anyone I trust at the moment. Coordinators will know that the credibility of the system depends on the maturity and even-handedness of the process. It's here to set the bar properly for admin behaviour, yes, but it's here also to bring us all together and gain more respect for adminship. Admins should like the overall outcome, even if some individuals end up being named and their admin activities monitored for a defined period of time. Perhaps you may feel more comfortable when I've written more details of how how decisions should be made; that can't be done entirely without running the system and quickly rooting out any rough edges that appear. Catch 22. Tony (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I realise it's currently undeveloped, so my comments only apply to the details as they are at the moment, but I too foresee a problem with the personnel selection. I actually think that initial selection by Tony is fine; this at least (presumably) means that he will have developed a relationship of some sort with the editors and they can work together more smoothly to improve AdminWatch in its early stages. However, I think the question of continuance is important here, and the avoidance of a cabal, or accusation of it. Once editors decide that AdminWatch personnel are biased (whether they are or not), AdminWatch will suffer and a lot of effort will go into proving the accusations unfounded. In addition, co-ordinators may get tired, lazy, or burned out, considering how successful the project may be, and replacing them might not come often or soon enough to avoid stress.

Perhaps this is an unworkable idea, but would it not be feasible to have a "rolling selection" of co-ordinators? The original four co-ordinators could have a "length of service" defined; say four months for User 1, five months for User 2, and so on, and at the end of the tenure, each retiring co-ordinator chooses their replacement, to be approved by Tony (and perhaps the remaining three co-ordinators, too). The selected replacements would always be amongst more seasoned co-ordinators, but keeping the project (hopefully) more alive and enthusiastic, and adding a new point of view. In seven months, the co-ordinators would all be replaced, and would be so every seven months, so consistent bias, or accusations of it, are unlikely to become an issue. Previous personnel could be personnel again; perhaps the length of their original tenure could also be their retirement length: so User 1, after four months, could be considered for appointment again, meaning that in a bind or a pinch, a more experienced hand is available.

I'd be interested in hearing opinion on this idea and discussing its merits and drawbacks. Presently, I think it could be a great solution to a potentially thorny issue, so it would be nice to have my rosy view tempered with reality, if necessary! Maedin\^talk 14:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've no time right now, but will return to read your suggestions properly. (I don't have the answer yet to the longer-term selection of personnel. Also, I don't intend to be lord of this empire for too long—it needs to evolve into a community-owned system, but there are significant advantages in launching it in userspace.) Tony (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, to return to your suggestions: I'm not immediately attracted to the "rolling" idea, and choosing one's replacement will surely provoke those who would see a cabal emerging. I'm hoping that the technical, objective aspects of decision-making be paramount ... but, it will involve:

1. Filtering out the unreasonable/vexatious/trivial ones at the start;
2. Determining compliance or non-compliance with WP:ADMIN;
3. If non-compliant, determining whether a breach is significant, and if so, how significant;
4. Determining a remedy/remedies (recommendation of acknowledgement, the occasional apology, referral to ANI or mediation, occasional issues with the wording of the policy (-> WT:ADMIN?).

This will involve:

• The interpersonal skills to handle Stage 2.
• The analytical and linguistic skills to write recommendations;

See? Piece of cake. Tony (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Aah yes - "interpersonal skills"... from people on wiki... about admins...

Piece of cake... :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on the Specific Policy requirements section

Hi Tony1. I read over this section and read the WP:Administrators page from which it is derived. I think you've done a great job in distilling the contents of that page in an easy to read and straightforward way. There is one thing I would add (somewhere in there maybe) which reflects this basic idea in the policy: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect."

Perhaps I might express it as: "Admins are human and they can make mistakes. When an admin screws up, he/she should own up to it, do all they can to repair any damage, and avoid making similar mistakes in the future."

blech ... I don't know. Not so good at policy writing really. But I think you catch my gist? Something about WP:AGF in the face of what might seem to be something awful, but turns out just to be a misunderstanding might be worth mentioning. That's all I have to say for now. Good work. Tiamut^talk 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the frequency of administrator mistakes is more relevant than whether they stem from malice or incompetence. Thus the question should not be "was the incident an innocent misunderstanding?" but rather "how often is this administrator prone to innocent misunderstandings, compared to his or her peers?"--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Both good points. Let me think about it. No time right now. Tony (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No one expects an administrator to be perfect. But one who makes a clear mistake, such as preemptively closing a discussion the outcome of which would have directly affected his own editing practices, and fails to admit and correct the mistake is quite simply not worthy of continuing to be an administrator. So, I don't believe that mistake frequency is as important as what the administrator does to rectify his mistakes. Tennis expert (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Prone to issues. For example, X is an admin, Y is an editor who keeps hounding X over some perceived slight, refuses to accept it was reasonable, or their own conduct was a concern, and keeps trying to raise it with X. During the course of the thread, X has responded several times, and effectively ignores at this point, in order to not escalate disruption. Y now claims they did wrong, and are refusing to address it, and that X is "preemptively closing a discussion the outcome of which would have directly affected his own editing practices, and fails to admit and correct the mistake" and "is quite simply not worthy of continuing to be an administrator".

This kind of scenario is the stuff that comes up routinely, so any process must be robust for it and very carefully worded to not allow scope for "gaming" and "forum shopping". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and AdminWatch needs to avoid being caught between entanglement in such issues and accusations on its talk page that it's a stooge for admins or a weak process that crumbles in the face of difficulties. I can see that there needs to be a strongly worded statement about the right not to take on cases (reasons, even brief, always given). FT2's example seems to fall on the trivial side, and could be vexatious depending on the situations. Tony (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) "Vexatious" is an unworkable criterion. Any case, meritorious or not, has the potential to be vexatious. (2) What I meant by "discussion" did not include a thread on an administrator's or editor's discussion page. I meant only a thread on a policy discussion page this is closed by an administrator whose own editing practices could have been affected by the outcome of the discussion. Tennis expert (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Problem with "vexatious"? I thought it was a fairly well-known term in the world of regulation. Please expound. Tony (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding AdminWatch rules

You say: Who can lodge a grievance? Only registered Wikipedians who are not administrators or bureaucrats may file a grievance.

Admins and 'crats can be the victims of poor administrative decisions too. They are not permitted to use their tools to undo any action against them, personally. Therefore why would they not be permitted to use this mechanism also? Setting up a system where admins can be complained about, while specifically restricting them from making a complaint themselves, is a sure way to establish an us vs them atmosphere, and will, I predict, result in rejection by the admin community. Rockpocket 17:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about this very issue; I'm leaning towards your argument. Do other people have an opinion? Tony (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An administrator or bureaucrat should be able to file a grievance against an administrator or bureaucrat but should have no role after the filing. Tennis expert (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Rockpocket and Tennis expert here, though I can see how this can cause problems. If the stated aim of this page is to avoid the admin cabal that stalks the drama board, it could be an issue when discussing the actions of admins. For example, you may not be able to judge the merits of the complaint without access to deleted material (which only admins can access). Regards. Woody (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's rejoinder: There seem to be two issues here. First, I have no problem in allowing admins and bureacrats to be parties to grievance actions. As involved parties, those users would have to be able to participate in the Stage 2 discussion, along with the admin whose behaviour is the subject of the complaint.

However, whether to allow admins and bureacrats to participate in Stage 2 as third parties (i.e., those who are neither complainant nor complained about) raises the spectre (as Woody mentions) of the overwhelming of this process by cabals of these users. I hadn't thought this through, and I guess I was assuming that only non-admins would be permitted as third parties in this capacity. In addition, I hadn't completely dismissed the idea of recruiting one or two NPOV admins/bureacrats as coordinators—the credibility it would bring to the page may be an advantage.

So, of these four (possible) categories of participant, here's my take:

• Complainant: any WPian (I'm changing that bit on the page now)
• Subject of complaint: any admin
• Coordinators: selected from all WPians, but the emphasis on non-admins/bureacrats (this is very possible at the moment, but would have to be revisited/codified later, since I want to recede from ownership after the process settles down).
• Third-party participants (Stage 2): either (i) none—discussion allowed only by those named by the complainant(s) as parties, or (ii) none—discussion for those named by the complainant(s) as parties, except that third parties may be allowed to participate on application to and approval by a coordinator (reason to be given by the user applying to be a third party).

I don't know which is better—probably (i) because it's simple.

Additional options for third-party participation are likely to result in chaos, with big, long, unfocused debates; that is just what we need to avoid: (iii) non-admins/bureacrats only, without restriction; (iv) any WPian, without restriction; and (v) any WPian, but admins and bureacrats must declare their status on their first posting.

Another issue that I hadn't thought about is the difficulty of stopping anyone from commenting on a case on the talk page, as a way to participate through the back door, as it were. I suppose there could be a big notice at the top of the talk page disallowing this (prompt removal of attempts by non-participants to get around the requirements for participation), but it's getting fussy and ... a little restrictive. I'm inclined to let the talk page be free, where others can let off steam or comment to their heart's content without the status of being an on-page participant in Stage 2.

Your thoughts, Woody, Rockpocket and TE—and others, please? Tony (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Only registered Wikipedians Why? 86.44.16.185 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal bias, I'm afraid. I have little time for those who want the benefits of community participation (as opposed to mere readership, ironically, our top priority) without establishing a proper wiki identity. That's the least we should ask. Why should be put resources into people who don't have proper channels of communication, talk pages, etc? Registration will take you three minutes. Tony (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good thing, to limit to registered accounts, considering the possible sock or meatpuppeting that can go on with IPs. In any case, Tony, I think this is a good idea, and look forward to its progression. Everyone needs someone to keep them honest :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal bias is a good reason. The rest, not so much. People who care enough to sock or meatpuppet generally take the time to register accounts, I would assume. It would make it much easier. And nobody wants any benefits, just fair treatment by admins per policy, which i thought was what this project was about. IP editors are probably much more likely not to receive it, for reasons similar to your personal bias. As to how long it would take me to register, this is the most common answer to any issue raised by an IP about IPs in general, as if solving one instance makes it go away by some magic. Still, your project, your rules. 86.44.20.16 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think (i) or (ii). We could do without comments from the peanut gallery. Rockpocket 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I vote for (i) because it would be far simpler. A party who needed advice or help in making his argument could always seek the advice or help independently. He could then incorporate the third party's suggestions in his argument as he thought appropriate. Tennis expert (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Who?

Hi Tony, I'm just musing over a couple of things in this about scoping who can be involved how.

1) Reported issues about the behaviour of those with some sort of power in Wikipedia don't stop with ordinary admins but also covers checkusers, oversight and arbcom. (See User talk:Thatcher#Statement on the perceived need for oversight on the first two.) I think you need to be explicit on which powers and groups of users are or aren't covered by this process. E.g. you might say that this committee won't have the access proveleges to be able to review the use of checkuser or oversight powers but reserves the right to comment on the use of admin powers by checkusers. Or you might want to recruit a former Arbcommer just so that you can have someone able to review these issues.

2) Another complaint is about people being seen as collecting as many badges as possible and this committee would be another. Should the number of other roles held by coordinators be limited?

I may think of something else later.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: I'll peruse this one in about 12 hours' time. Tony (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's response: I'd like to keep this to admins, since (i) there is an extensive policy page governing their behaviour process, making the criteria for complaint and remedy clearer than would otherwise be the case; (ii) their behaviour constitutes a serious issue, particularly blocking; (iii) there are more than 1600 of them; and (iv) the process is quite complex enough in dealing with admins alone. Badges or no badges should be irrelevant, I suggest. I'm more concerned to find NPOV people who have the skills to address complex situations and to exclude the emotional content. Tony (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I suggest you make the limit to admins (and bureaucrats?) explicit in the main page.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition to nutshell

Greg L, a major contributor to MOSNUM, inter alia, has suggested an extension to the nutshell text (the second para):

This is a non-official process for dealing with users' grievances against administrator (admin) behaviour, in the absence of an effective official mechanism for ensuring that admins comply with the policy requirements governing their behaviour. As a non-official process, the available correctional mechanism of this process is to place offending admins on a watch list. The watch list gives bureaucrats a convenient tool to see if an admin who has come to attention might have chronic issues, The watch list also serves as "club of shame" to which admins would care not be a member. Admins can 'earn' their way off the watch list after a probationary period wherein no further substantive complaints arise.

I think this is too long for a nutshell, and I'd rather have the negative stuff less prominent. Yes, the strongest muscle we have is "name and shame", but there's something to be gained by avoiding negativity where possible (it's not entirely possible, but there is some leeway).

We can't assume that bureacrats will take notice of it as a systemic part of their role, so I'd rather not suggest that at this stage.

Let's allow this to lie for a little while and determine whether anything from this extra para might be integrated into the main text. Tony (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise wording now. You like? Tony (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between "non-official" and simple old "unofficial"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good question, Hoary. I hadn't thought it through consciously: "non-official", I think, may bestow just a little more authority than "unofficial". Perhaps it's the sense that the page is purposefully characterised as not being official that I was after. Tony (talk)

5a

I would add to 5a something along the lines of, "in borderline cases where involvement or impartiality is unclear, it is better to err on the side of caution. If an admin action is seen as needed by others, then another will likely accept the job on the noticeboard. If not, there may be a good reason for examining whether there is need for admin action in the first place."

trying to get folks to err on the side of caution, as this has been an issue. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Spot on comment, Cas. I've been discussing this with FT2. My take is that I need to draft examples of cases that are close to the edge of the decision to (i) dismiss at Stage 1 or move to Stage 2, (ii) dismiss from Stage 2 / move to records / move to Watchlist for specified time-periods.

The more the decisions can be codified, the easier the task of coordinators and the more consistent and fair the outcomes. Yes, caution is the go. Tony (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Projected start date

I'm thinking of the start of 2009. Major things to do, not in particular sequence:

1. Write examples of hypothetical cases that (i) clearly demand a certain decision by a coordinator; and more problematically, (ii) are close to decision-making boundaries (to dismiss in Stage 1 or to promote? To dismiss in Stage 2, to put on record, or to place on Watch, and for how long? To write these examples, I'll need to draw on RL examples (anonymised); I suspect that there are quite a lot. The boundary cases will be hardest to get right; a number will be required for each boundary. These examples will be a resource for coordinators, helping us to make the process as consistent and fair as possible.
2. Seek feedback on these examples, from non-admins and admins.
3. Make the process as streamlined as possible: I think statements and rejoinders should be limited in number and size during Stage 2.
4. Recruit suitable coordinators.
5. Start a trial with RL examples.

At the same time I'm going to encourage the rewriting of the Admin policy (without substantive change, except where there are inconsistencies); it has grown into a state of disorder. To think that ArbCom has been using it, and will be using it as the basis for decisions is weird.Tony1|Tony]] (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not how policy works, nor how Arbcom uses it. Quick clarification / de-confuser for you :) ...

There is a kind of "sense of the community" in a range of areas. Although we widely disagree, there is a norm for example, that admins are expected to do certain things, and the tools are expected to be used certain ways. As principles, those change slower than policy, often lasting for years. The policy wording, that sums them up in words, can change quickly and radically. The policy is more in the form of a guide, and a summary, documenting norms that we broadly seem to have agreement on over time.

That works surprisingly well. For example, BLP may be edited today or tomorrow, but for the foreseeable future, "do no harm" is one aspect of BLP, and we can discuss how it balances and gets used. "Edit warring is disruptive and undesirable" is another norm, we can change policies hourly but that's basically "a norm". And so on. Admin policy sums up our expectations of admins -- they should be reputable users, trusted not to abuse the tools, and act to a pretty good standard without too many bad lapses or misjudgements. How you word it doesn't matter so much. But that's been a sort of norm for a long long time. WP:ADMIN tries to sum that up, and make it the best we can as a description of the rough norm we seem to be looking for, communally. Improve it if you like :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly. But policies are only policies and rules here only rules or binding when the clear and/or overwhelming majority of users accept them. If Tony's project here goes live, and the clear and/or overwhelming majority buys into it, or any edits he makes to the Admin policy, then it's become policy. Valid policy (except Foundation policy) is never dictated top-down, it's always the other way around. rootology (C)(T) 20:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider the pay

[adopts flat voice, reminiscent of at least one scene from The Manchurian Candidate and descriptions within Wendy Kaminer's I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional:]

My name is Hoary and I am an administrator.

As far as I recall, I have exercised my administratorial mop twice today.

First, having belatedly realizing that Izu Kenrō is in practice an American who writes his name "Kenro Izu", I moved the crap article Kenrō Izu to Kenro Izu over a redirect. I vaguely remember that mere mortals here can't do this. If so, my ability to do it meant less of my time wasted than if I weren't an admin and had to ask one, and of course it also meant wasting nobody else's time.

Secondly, having noticed a stupid edit by User:Jesusbuttforkingchrist and having quickly looked through his list of "contributions", I decided that he was a flaming asshole and blocked him indefinitely. (The male pronoun is deliberate; rightly or wrongly, I think of all such people as male.) An administrator should be exceedingly careful when blocking, I read here: I wasn't exceedingly careful but instead acted on the strong impression that he made. And I then didn't bother to write anything on his page, because my time is too important to waste on flaming assholes. That probably violated some guideline or other. And straightforwardly referring to him as a flaming asshole (as opposed to, say, a "user exhibiting problematic behaviour") undoubtedly does too.

I don't want to take excessive care when "administering", as recommended in this proposal-in-the-making. I want to take reasonable care, and no more. (My care should "satisfice"; did I really utter that hideous word?) Despite my chronic lack of immense care, I haven't made a major screw-up yet. I will perhaps make the occasional mistake. This thought doesn't disturb me: my occasional mistake can be corrected, either by me or by somebody else. I may even apologize when appropriate.

It's imaginable that a mistake by me, compounded by lateness or lack of apology, may piss somebody off. I'm not much concerned by this. Dealing with other Wikipedia editors, I am not a salaried uniformed hotel flunky dealing with paying guests. I'm just some unpaid drudge sporadically helping to make Wikipedia not suck. If my approach doesn't please solemn new guidelines, I'll probably start by ignoring any vandalism that doesn't affect articles that happen to interest me: such vandalism can be dealt with by people who score far higher at earnestness, effort, and self-abnegation than I do. Wikipedia will get the administrators that it deserves. -- Hoary (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hoary and I have a well-established off-wiki line of communication, which is fun. I hope I haven't offended him. If the established policies are ill-advised, perhaps they should be changed. If ArbCom judgements are problematic, perhaps they should be revisited or updated by ArbCom. I hadn't even thought of changing those texts; I just think they should be codified and taken notice of.

"Extreme care", I suppose, applies when the cases are not so blindingly obvious. Feel extremely free to protect us in this way, Hoary. Tony (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yippee, thanks Tony. (Administratitudinalizing is fun with a capital "PH"!) -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your friend outlines a popular admin philosophy (except the part about apologizing, which is a rare, possibly mythical, component of it). Admins of this stripe do not bother with policy, that's for the proles, they have "clue" and so can insult and throw their weight about. I hope you can rewrite the policy pages so that they are not so hypocritical.

My own experience of Hoary is of his coming to an admin pal's talk page and telling me he was going to block me for being a "bore". The pal had used my (perfectly fine) editing to support an indef block of another user, on the basis that I was him. The thought of my editing being used against another editor disturbed me greatly, and I was on her talk page seeking either a rewording of her support for that block, or a presentation of her reasoning. I got neither, of course, but it was all relatively civil 'til Hoary's intervention. He didn't care, he said, about the issues, but I was a "bore". After replying indignantly to Hoary, I picked up one of those thuggish short blocks for "disruption and being a sockpuppet" from the original admin, with link to WP:DE of course.

Given the judgment/capriciousness of sectors of the admin corps, i am amazed whenever i encounter the perception that a block log is ipso facto any kind of a black mark.

While you're rewriting policy pages, take a look at WP:BLOCK#Block_reviews for any trace of a culture in which admins independently review blocks and form a view. Before I read it, I thought that's what {{unblock}} prompted! 86.44.20.16 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IP, I'm most surprised to read that I ever told anyone I'd block them for being a bore. (Blocking somebody for boringness is the kind of thing I'd certainly do if I were the anarch of Wikipedia; but I'm not this, and so I don't even fantasize about it, let alone threaten others with it.) Still, something about blocking and the epithet "bore" rang a distant bell, and after digging around I came up with this. In it, I did indeed say that I didn't care about the issues and that the complainant was a bore. I wouldn't retract that. I made no threat to block anyone for being a bore. ¶ You add that administrators of my stripe "do not bother with policy". This implies that I don't bother with policy. That surprises me, as I think I almost always do bother with policy. It's possible that on occasions I don't. I generally check it before appealing to it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I occasionally misremember something. (Plus, as I note above in the context of "Jesusbuttforkingchrist", I skip the formalities if I'm dealing with a real fool.) Should I put more effort into refreshing my memory with policy and implementing it right? If I got substantive complaints I might well either (a) do just that or (b) resign my adminship, which is why Tony's idea seems an interesting one. ¶ I've taken a quick through your list of contributions and that of the person I called a bore; the latter includes some thoughtful looking substantive edits (here's one); do please make more like this (while observing "3RR", "RS" and the rest) and if they get you into trouble drop me a note on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC) .... (PS If you're interested, Here's me independently reviewing a block and overturning it. Hoary (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

You very much do threaten to block me, in the most contemptuous way, for being a bore, presumably your interpretation of asking an admin for a reword or a presentation of reasoning. I'm surprised to see you back away from the fact that you did that when the discussion is right there. "Who cares, block 'em all" is a reasonable summary of your position. Remember that GwenGale was using my editing to support an indef block against another editor.

It's no surprise that I made the edit you refer to, since I wrote that article from scratch, and plenty of others, so forgive me if I take your suggestion that I "run off and edit articles" to be as insulting as it was the first time you made it, though this time it is not on threat of a block. As it happens I'm quite ambivalent about creating content for this place now. The pay is not good (I noted your lack of appreciation of this point in your original post) and one is pushed around and treated disgracefully based on the whims, friendships and egos of those with tools. 86.44.17.101 (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you are prone to ill-considered blundering into civil, meaningful discussion armed with your own presumptions in order to goad and insult "nobodies" and wave tools about, possibly out of admin solidarity or some worse cronyism, then yes, please do partake in either a) or b). I'm not at all sensitive to incivility and attacks (witness my mere eyeroll and +1 for "mythical" when you do not miss the chance to call me a bore again above) — where I come from some back-and-forth between equals is normal. But as Lightmouse gently points out below, when it is done while waving tools about (possibly even while having them behind one's back, or wearing them as a shield) then it becomes something thuggish and abusive.

Just for kicks, of poor G.G. it must be said that she is widely-held to have socked in order to evade an arbcom restriction (she says that Fred Bauer told her to do this without his telling the rest of the committee, which is just screwy enough to be true around here), and knowingly violated COI to spam her non-notable book and bio here. Now that is disruptive, as, in a sane view free of clique-y wiki-political bullshit, was your intervention in our encounter. And I don't see you decrying GG's block of me at a point when the conversation was over in any case, just because she could (well technically she couldn't, as an obviously involved admin, but that boring stuff is for the proles. "Good block, old chap!")

And of my comments re: unblocks, that was not directed at you, nor to suggest that independent review does not happen, but to point out the extent to which the culture mitigates against it. Though it's worth noting 3RR is somewhat of a straight up and down issue, more so than judgment call eye-of-the-beholder blocks for, say, "disruption", "civility", "sockpuppet" and the gods know what else.

No doubt tony shall be along shortly to tell me i'm boring and disruptive and to get off his page. No block shall be necessary. 86.44.18.31 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps his inhospitality would be less likely if you'd make suggestions for the scheme for which this is the talk page. And as for me, I understand that you feel most aggrieved, but I'll have trouble feeling sympathy until I notice that you have returned to making constructive additions to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no need of your notice, nor of anything stemming from your back-handed, evasive and entirely dubious claimed comprehension of my "feelings", thanks. 86.44.20.121 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the example illustrates one particular issue rather well, that of aggressive/abusive language. A police officer can be rude without fear of sanction but a civilian can't. Rudeness from the powerful is wrong in a world where police officers never make mistakes and it is wrong in our world where police officers frequently make mistakes. The terms quoted by Hoary are examples of language that I don't want to see in open debate. I am no prude but as a method of working, anyone with power should be more polite than somebody without power. I would be very happy if we could score all classes of editor in terms of politeness. If an admin has a low politeness score, they should not be an admin. Lightmouse (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

So I should have referred to IDs such as User:Jesusbuttforkingchrist as "users exhibiting problematic behaviour"? Could do, but I'd then find it hard to keep a straight face; I'd keep thinking of the phrase "tired and emotional". Which is not to deny that many users exhibiting problematic behaviour have innocent intentions; even I attempt to treat the huge majority courteously. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hoary has, as usual, improved my English (lead overleaf)—just as he went through my User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a page to sharpen up the prose. He's very skilled. Tony (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

C'mon Tony: anybody with half a command of a language can pick an occasional nit within something long that was produced in a hurry by somebody with a good command of the language. But apropos of fixing the lingo, I have problems with this bit: The wording of the policy has been modified without intending any substantive change to the meaning, to organise the expectations into themes and to improve the English. The ultimate legal force resides in the wording at the policy page and in related ArbCom rulings. (My emphasis.) If the English so badly needs improving, let's go over there and improve it. If it doesn't, then let's grit our teeth and quote it as is. (And one other little nit: could you think of an easier alternative to "vexatious"? I fear it will have many users scurrying to their dictionaries.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A less facetious response to Lightmouse: It's obvious that there is a considerable middle ground between terms of abuse (even if richly merited) at the one extreme and such studied phrases as "users exhibiting problematic behaviour" at the other. Yes, the former should almost always be avoided: while I don't claim psychopathological expertise, it seems likely that the kind of person ("Grawp", etc) who merits abuse may well thrive on attention paid to him, and he'll infer plenty of attention from abuse. (Incidentally, this is the reason why I've long opposed decorative warnings [white hands on red, etc]. I've a hunch that many people who get them pride themselves on them, and perhaps show them to their RL chums. Warnings about vandalism should be informative, short, and uninteresting. Indefinitely blocked vandals should have nothing whatever to show for their work.) Further, everybody (administrators included) should try to be polite. However, nobody (and of course no administrator) should have a right to treatment carrying no risk of causing offense. Thus for example if A wastes the time of B, B should try to find a polite way out of this; but if this doesn't succeed, B should then be able to tell A to stop wasting her time. If A then squawks about impoliteness, tough. If B is an administrator and A really thinks there has been an injustice (and perhaps that B didn't bother to read and consider what A was saying), then this is the kind of area where Tony's proposed procedure can be applied. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your second response. I was going to make the same point about middle ground and also refer you to the rules:

• lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others
• strive to set an example of appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another
• avoid making personal attacks
• avoid incivility, specifically remaining civil—even toward users exhibiting problematic behaviour

If a powerful office does not measure politeness in its officers, the world starts to deteriorate. You make reasonable points in your second response. The vast majority of admins have nothing to fear and everything to gain from checks and balances. Admins that are found to be the most rude should not be admins. Lightmouse (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Tennis expert (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Registration"

Only registered Wikipedians may file a grievance.

I know what this means (or think I do), but I'm not sure that others will. I don't think that WP talks of registration; rather, it talks of creating an account and logging in before editing. (Yes, I've just now verified this by accessing WP with a browser I seldom use.)

Terminology aside, you're saying that a fixed IP with a history of edits can't complain as is, but can complain as throwaway User:Hey, fools, you want a username? Here you are then.. This isn't obviously fair or helpful. I once across a fixed IP with a pleasant little garden of a user page and a talk page with long, erudite and amicable conversations about substantive issues; this person ought to be able to make a complaint unless this would complicate matters terribly.

How about Only Wikipedians who can demonstrate that they have made substantive contributions to articles may file a grievance or something else in that general direction?

Sorry if I've missed something. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll change it to "Only users with Wikipedia accounts may file a grievance". I believe that having an account is the least one can expect if performing a service such as this for a user. An account suggests a certain commitment and accountability to the project (and few IP pages have any information on them). The anonymity and changeability of a mere IP address is a problem—I believe that IP complainants would be liable to drop out at any moment, wasting the investment of this process. In short, they've gotta be at least named members of the club for us to bother; I see nothing wrong with prioritising users with accounts—enought of them are treated unfairly by admins. A user with the name User:Hey, fools, you want a username? Here you are then. is not likely to be treated seriously here, unless their contribs show a bona fides. Goodwill meets goodwill.

The idea that you've got to be able to demonstrate substantive contributions to articles means that coordinators will have to spend time assessing this aspect for every complainant. I don't think this is a good use of their time. Tony (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. My own suggestion was poorly expressed because it was past my bedtime (and perhaps because of my lingering evil mood, prompted by the earlier refusal of a waiter to turn down the crap muzak in the restaurant from which I then left in a huff). I hadn't thought that plaintiffs (scary word, but one syllable fewer) would have to demonstrate what you or I would consider a large oeuvre; rather, that this would be a way of weeding out people who, as usernames or IPs, had merely attempted to write one, two or three articles about themselves, their chums, their downloadable songs, etc.

Tiny nit: There's something about the word prior that rubs me up the wrong way. It always reminds me of Pentagon talking heads and such contexts as "collateral damage" (i.e. indiscriminate homicide). "Earlier"? "Previous"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I usually object to "prior". However, here it is used in the policy wording, and there's insufficient reason to change it. "Suitable previous advice"; "Suitable earlier advice" ... are they sufficient improvement to warrant changing the policy wording here? You have my sympathy concerning the musak. Some waiters seem to forget who is paying and who is being paid. Tony (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's better to phrase it differently: "Users who have <an account|200 edits|a visible history of contribution|whatever criterion> may use this process to <purpose of it all>." (As opposed to the wording you've suggested which can come across as "only you can (but they can't)". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Then it has to be checked in many cases. I'm really not interested in drop-by users who don't have an account. Tony (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note, I'd like to introduce my wikifriend, 76.117.247.55. Now, I know he doesn't seem to have a lot of edits right now, but he underwent an ISP-forced "rename" last week and was previously known as 68.39.174.238. He has over 23,000] edits under his belt and has contributed to every area of Wikipedia, but has suffered the slings and arrows of repeated demands to register, been informed that his edits were "vandalism", called a spammer; now that his IP has been changed, I'll lay odds he's going to be on the receiving end of some unpleasantness. He can always complain to me, but it would be nice if he could take advantage of this program as well. There are a few other unregistered editors with similar longterm IPs and extensive edit histories. If I can persuade someone to make a list for you, would you consider including them as editors who may register a concern here? Risker (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I can see that I'm outnumbered, and that you people may have a point. I'll try (after my next client) to word it so that anons with a reasonble editing history are included. Does that satisfy your and Hoary's and Ft2's point? I should ask that after I've made the change. Tony (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some articles protected from editing by new editors. How does that work? Lightmouse (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the page protection tools used by administrators when an article is being vandalized repeatedly by anonymous IP editors. Tennis expert (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. I wasn't asking about why it exists. I was suggesting that we could use its definition of 'established editor'. I have now done some investigating via Wikipedia:Protect#Semi-protection. It appears to mean 'editor logged in with an autoconfirmed account'. As far as I can see 'autoconfirmed' means accounts at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits. AutoWikiBrowser says that it only gives access to editors with at least 500 mainspace edits and I imagine they also restrict access to logged in accounts that have existed for a while. I propose that we have the following criteria:

• age e.g. 4 days
• number of mainspace edits e.g. 10 mainspace edits
• account e.g. generally restricted to logged in users but exceptions can be made for IP editors.

Lightmouse (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How's this wording?

#Who can lodge a grievance? Only users with a Wikipedia account, although exceptions may be made for bona fide anonymous IP users.

Tony (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm thick, but I don't understand what "bona fide anonymous IP users" means.

I don't suppose I would be invited to be a "coordinator", and if invited I'd decline. And I certainly wouldn't volunteer for the job. Still, I'll try to put myself in a coordinator's shoes for a moment. If I'm to look at somebody's grievance, I have to put some work into it. Now, if somebody with very few edits claims, even credibly, to have been slighted, abused, or whatever, and wants to do well but is unhappy about the black marks, it's a lot less work for me and others to work out what to do about her complaint than it would be for her just to get a new username.

Yes, if I as newly minted "Hoary" back in 2005 or whenever had been pissed on (short-term blocks, etc) by one or more admins after a few dozen edits, I'd have either put up with it or dropped out and reappeared as "Glory" or whatever.

How about this: Only usernames (or, exceptionally, IP numbers) who have made contributions of some significance [rephrase that bit to your taste] contributions to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We may be giving this issue more thought than we should. But I just wanted to look at it from the other direction i.e. starting with the admin rather than starting with the editor. In the section above, we discussed assessing admins on the basis of their interaction trends. In such cases, a complaint from a single good faith editor with a single good faith edit may be desirable. I like Tony's formulation and I am comfortable with the latin term but perhaps replacing bona fide with good faith might be plainer english. Lightmouse (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind "good-faith", but using the English term made me realise that all grievances should be in good faith, and part of a coordinator's task to determine whether a grievance is that. It might solve the problem if we go for the simplest option:

#Who can lodge a grievance? Any editor on Wikipedia.

At the same time, I've realised the dangers of the second sentence: ("A complainant need not be involved in the scenario that is the subject of the grievance.") That seems to leave the door open for complainants to gather together their friends in launching a group action, unfairly using numbers for effect. It also would allow individual admins to be picked off by anyone. I hope you all agree that this is not a good idea. Tony (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the simpler wording Any editor is better. As far as unfair group actions are concerned, I don't think it will be a problem if we are looking for interaction patterns. If ten people complain about a single event, it is still only one event and can't be called a pattern until more evidence is available. If ten people reveal ten events, it looks like an interaction pattern. Lightmouse (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is important that the process be seen to be fair, and I don't want complainants to go shopping for colleagues to join with them. I'm changing the text now: see how you like it. Tony (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary, not revolutionary

Obviously what Tony is after is not to turn everything upside down, uproot the "old order", and run the old elite out of town on a rail, as shown by the fact that he is basing his proposal on the admin-related policies and rulings that he carefully collated from various places on Wikipedia.

It's possible that some expectations need to be dialed down. If this project results in incremental improvement, the kind that makes the WP editing experience ten percent better for ten percent of the editors, I would consider that a major achievement. If anyone can pull it off, Tony is the guy. Some things are constants and will not change. Nasty people will continue to present problems. They will need to be warned-then-blocked or blocked immediately, depending on circumstances.

I'm not yet seeing the mechanics of a "naming-and-shaming" approach. Will there be statistics kept on the number of blocks handed out by admins? A bare naked statistic cannot distinguish between (1) a "block-happy" admin who capriciously blocks and/or threatens people and (2) a courageous admin who gets his or her hands dirty on a regular basis and braves abuse to do the right thing.

Sometimes a single block, if wrongly imposed on an editor, can do more harm than a hundred blocks that are justifiable. That single block would not really show in a statistic. Quantitative data are important as an aid towards objectivity but are not sufficient in and of themselves.

Perhaps the optimum that the new process can achieve is greater consistency, to dispel the perception that block threats and actual blocks are subject to whim and caprice. I will also add that I find the emphasis within Wikipedia on Civility and Edit Warring to be excessive. I see people peddling pseudoscientific snake oil and getting away with it for the longest time, and I see editors couching their hatreds in civil language and getting away with it.

An example: Wikipedia is much better than the average Internet discussion forum in curtailing politely worded hate speech against Jews or Israel, but it could do better. This is one area where I would like to see stricter enforcement rather than more leniency.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's response:

"I'm not yet seeing the mechanics of a "naming-and-shaming" approach." True; I need to think through the whole mechanics carefully, then consider feedback here. Can't do much until mid-week, when I'm freeeeeeeeeeee of work for a while.

"Will there be statistics kept on the number of blocks handed out by admins?" Records on the behaviour of admins who significantly or repeatedly breach policy will no doubt be kept, but I'm keen that they not be permanent: the system should have a in-built "forgive and move on" aspect as a motivation to adhere to the policy – a probationary period, if you like. I want this system to be oriented towards healing and prevention, rather than punishment. The less it's used, the better, and if it can encourage reconciliation, apologies, and back-downs by either party during Stage 2, all the better. But clearly, this will not always be possible. The easiest cases will be where we can declare that an admin either has or has not adhered to policy, and then judge what to do about this.

It's hard to design the system in detail without an extensive program of "thought experiments", based on the examination of actual cases. This I intend to do. One spin-off is going to be a raft of queries about just what the policy means in detail. Here's an example:

(6) Communication

• An admin should:
  • (a) provide the appropriate user(s) with suitable prior warnings and explanations of their administrative actions, using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries;^[21][22]

Now, does "suitable" mean that the diffs of the claimed offence should be included where a user has been blocked, say, for edit-warring? That seems reasonable, but already I've encountered instances where they were not supplied by the admin and where in retrospect it's difficult (even impossible) to ascertain where and when the claimed offence occurred, and exactly what it was. Is AdminWatch going to be assume that this is what "suitable" means? I think I would if I were coordinating such as case; but ultimately, this is subject to rulings by ArbCom. To what extent is AdminWatch going to make recommendations for detail to be built into the policy at WP:ADMIN on the basis of its work? Tony (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current monitoring system is more like a gentlemans club where admins monitor admins with relatively poor data. We will all benefit from having better data. Non-admins often complain about admins, particularly following a block, and a recorded complaint is not, in itself, something to be surprised about or ashamed off. We (admins included) would all like to identify admins that rank high for any particular type of problem. Open data recording is not the same as 'name and shame', in fact it can be 'name and be proud' if you are seen to be firm but fair. Lightmouse (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor quibble

In this section, "owner" either needs to be placed in quotes and/or reworded in order to comply with WP:USERSPACE. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In this section, the "f" needs to be capitalised. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. Shall do now. Maybe I'll avoid "owner" altogether. Tony (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Now live, nees to be in Wikipedia space

Now that this is apparently live it should be in the Wikipedia space. rootology (C)(T) 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, FYI. rootology (C)(T) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So when (and how) is this going to be presented to the community at large to gain consensus for adoption? MFD isn't the place certainly..RxS (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get it right, first, and that will take trialling. Tony (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement...?

Although I generally like the idea, I have a question. How would decisions/discussions be enforced here? Would they then be taken to WP:ANI, WP:RFC, or what? I only made a cursory glance at this, so correct me if I didn't see it. VX!^~~~ 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no enforcement here, nor can there be, simply a recording. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, but once a recording was made here it would go to perhaps something like WP:ANI? VX!^~~~ 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Or to ANI first—it doesn't matter. This is solely about something quite narrow. You know what is probably more important than recording: it's gaining a sense of closure if an admin acknowledges that s/he significantly breached WP:ADMIN; or determining that a complaint is not sustainable, or should go elsewhere; or building a knowledge base of what parts of the admin policy wording need to be tightened up for the benefit of all. Tony (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a lot clearer now. VX!^~~~ 01:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02

While I sympathize with what Tony is trying to do here, I have a concern which I imagine is shared by others. I fear that AdminWatch (assuming it gets up and running) will become a hangout of failed RfA candidates, anti-admin warriors, sockpuppets, and assorted trolls; in short, a haven for Wiki-Drama. I suggest therefore that half of the coordinators (two of four under the current proposal, if I'm not mistaken) should be administrators. This should have two effects: 1.) it should ensure that admins get a fair hearing by ensuring involvement by editors who obviously don't have an anti-admin bias; and 2.) it should help legitimize AdminWatch. The community in general (and administrators in particular) will be more open to AdminWatch if they see admins who are willing to participate in an admin-policing process. Honestly, I believe that to be successful AdminWatch has to be recognized by administrators as being a valid process, and the only way that that is going to happen is if administrators are welcomed and involved in it. Anyway, that's just my take. faithless (^speak) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with some admins being coordinators; however, it must not be dominated by admins, as are the current procedures. Tony (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this suggestion is how many administrators would be needed to approve AdminWatch before it is considered to be recognized by administrators generally? There will always be administrators who don't like it. And I'm not convinced that administrator buy-in is necessary for this process to be fair to everyone. I would analogize AdminWatch to a citizen committee that monitors law enforcement activity. Those committees exist in various places, and it's hardly ever the case that a law enforcement officer is a member. "Police monitoring police" keeps coming to mind. If it is truly desirable to have some administrators as coordinators, then they should be in the minority. Tennis expert (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are always going to be administrators who don't like it - that's true of every aspect of Wikipedia, among admins and non-admins alike. But since this is to be a voluntary, non-binding process (as others have put it, it has no "teeth"), administrators have to be included for it to get off the ground at all. If administrators are excluded from the process, why should they pay it any heed whatsoever? You can't very well go to an admin's talk page and say, "Hello, admin. There's this process that your kind isn't welcome to participate in, and it has no authority whatsoever, but we'd appreciate it if you would join this discussion where some other editor(s) are accusing you (most likely wrongly) of some wrong-doing. Thanks!" I can't imagine any administrator not dismissing such messages out-of-hand. If admins don't buy into this it has no legitimacy, and it dies a (probably very quick) death. It is critical (IMO) that admins and non-admins are represented equally if AdminWatch has any shot of succeeding. faithless (^speak) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most likely wrongly", huh? That's inappropriate prejudging of this process, indicating that you don't believe this process is valid regardless of how it is structured. Would you participate? I suspect that most administrators would participate because they want to improve Wikipedia and always exercise good faith. At least, I'd like to believe that. Aside from that, self-interest may be a good motivator, i.e., the desire not to have their good names wrongly (in their view) and publicly denigrated without response. Tennis expert (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Most likely wrongly, indeed. As an administrator I can vouch for the argument Redvers made here. Administrators are constantly barraged by complaints which are completely without merit, and this will undoubtedly happen here. That being the case, I can see this playing out two ways: 1.) admins can be included, and simply put up with the unwarranted complaints as an unavoidable byproduct of Wikipedia's open structure, or 2.) admins can be excluded, in which case they'll ignore AdminWatch altogether. As for whether or not I will participate in AdminWatch, I can't yet say. Like I said before, I sympathize with what Tony is trying to do here, and I could see something of this nature working out and benefiting Wikipedia. But I'd have to see the final draft, so to speak, before deciding if it's something I could support. faithless (^speak) 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's responses: In the best of worlds, it shouldn't matter whether or not a coordinator is an admin. I know plenty of both groups I'd trust, although convincing them to take on the role might be harder. The essence is that the personnel and the process must be trusted, by and large, by both groups—non-admins and admins. If admins take it over in project space, it will go the way of the current procedures, which are held in contempt and widely spurned (ask around if you don't believe me). Some admins may mistrust any system for forcing the issue of compliance with WP:ADMIN, but if the system is fair, most of them will be won over. Many admins already see the need for a new process; as User:faithless says: "I sympathize with what Tony is trying to do here" (couched in and expression of doubts).

Faithless: if this process were "teethless", why all the fuss over the past 18 hours? It has been instructive, though, and I'm busy trying to narrow the process further. I believe that the process has to be confined solely to whether there has or has not been a breach of WP:ADMIN (reasonably easy), perhaps how significant the breach is (harder), and recommendations for how to remedy the situation (might be easy, might be hard). In most cases where there has been a breach, what is best for the project and for editors will be simply an acknowledgement by the admin of that breach (occasionally an apology). If this presents a psychological problem for an admin, perhaps they shouldn't be an admin. After all, they're bound to set an example to all editors, and should gain strength and our trust by the occasional admission.

There may well be disagreements by admins that they have actually breached the policy. Some of these cases will provide a basis for recommending a tightening of the wording/detail in the policy, to minimise trouble in the future.

If these are the "teeth" of AdminWatch, they seem to be positive and not punitive in quality and outcome.

Tennis expert, I largely agree with what you say, but I believe that some flexibility is needed in accepting the expertise of a few admins (and perhaps the trust they may engender among their fellow admins). But they must not be allowed to dominate; we've just seen a case where a highly skilled and respected admin who is willing to identify breaches in admin policy, all too readily posted "Resolved" at the top and gave a little slap on the wrist of the offending admin. No acknowledgement of the breach by the offending admin, no sense of closure for the complainant (whatever his/her own wrongdoing—this is irrelevant here). Tony (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I think this is a great idea (and one that is long overdue), and I hope it takes off and becomes the process this project so desperately needs to deal with problematic admins. I also wanted to comment on something discussed above: Most likely wrongly is certainly a realistic view to take, however, if there is an admin or two on the panel of coordinators, those bogus complaints will most likely be thrown out, because admins do understand the completely absurd things we get complaints about. I expect the workable cases to be the serious ones, and I'm certain there is no lack of legitimate inappropriate admin actions to complain about. I think it's great that Tony1 has stated "In most cases where there has been a breach, what is best for the project and for editors will be simply an acknowledgement by the admin of that breach (occasionally an apology)." That is very true. Admins are human, thus sure to make mistakes and the occasional bad call or emotional decision. Almost all actions here are reversible and an acknowledgment and an apology are often all that is needed to resolve a situation. And I completely agree that if an admin can't swallow their pride and do those two (not so-)simple things, they're not fit for the bit. Anyway, if this process proves to be successful, hopefully that in and of itself will be enough to bring change into the admin team. If there's a process easier to use than ArbCom that shows results, then it's a process for us, as admins, to fear; and hopefully we'll see better behaved admins result from that. لennavecia 04:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

MFD

I've closed the MFD. While I agree the report that was made was important enough for a process like this to consider, it's also clear the process isn't ready or finished (per Tony's own words). Further, MFD is not an appropriate venue to discuss proposed policies, guidelines or processes. Once Tony and those working with him on this feel comfortable with attempting to gain community consensus for this process then we can hold something more formalized (if there's any need). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I agree with you entirely. Tennis expert (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, closing it was the right thing to do. VX!^~~~ 03:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You closed the MfD because you said it was inappropriate for a proposed process. But it seems that, as I feared, Tony has no interest in running this through the route for proposed processes and wants to run it in his userspace outside of normal process approval. Based on that, I question whether the closure of the MfD was appropriate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that he is running it in his userspace on a trial basis; feedback and results of the process will probably determine whether he goes farther than that. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Chunky Rice: Transferring it straight to project space before it is trialled is a big problem: if that happens, it will lose credibility because admins will take it over; there's a feeling among many WPians that admins should not dominate a process that determines whether their fellow admins have breached policy. Can you respond to this concern? If you have suggestions as to how coordinators might be chosen in project space, I'm all ears. Tony (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins outnumber admins by over a thousand to one. If admins dominate some areas of the project it's because of a lack of interest by most editors, not any sort of sinister plot. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If a small group of people has aircraft carriers, tanks, and cruise missles (administrators have tools) and a large group of people has only sticks and stones (editors who are not administrators), then there's no question who would dominate. When administrators use their tools to protect other administrators, there's little that ordinary editors can do about it. That's proven on a daily basis. Tennis expert (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That just sounds crazy and paranoid to me. If what you describe was actually the case, you, Tony and anybody who supports this thing would already be blocked and the page deleted. Also, I'm not really sure how being in Tony's userspace instead of in project space makes it immune to admin abuse. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not crazy at all. The disruptive administrators are a little more sophisticated in their tactics than immediate blocking and page deleting. They make notes-to-themselves about particular editors, use IRC or e-mail to talk about them behind the scenes, and then wait for the right opportunity to post misleading, false, or unsourced derogatory comments about those editors or, worse, support unreasonable and unfair action by other administrators at a later date. And there's nothing that non-administrators can do about it because the disciplinary process is dominated and ruled by the "I-scratch-your-back, you-scratch-my-back" club of administrators. Tennis expert (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be well to get these few basic facts right. There are 953 active administrators, and 157,366 active editors. Far from being "over a thousand to one" it's about 165 to one. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my hyperbole. Nevertheless, you seem to miss the point that admins are significantly outnumbered. The only reason that admins dominate certain areas of the project is that they are interested in them and most non-admins are not. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not miss the point, rather I dismissed it as being misleading. Administrators naturally tend to hang out in places like MfD, and in particular AN and AN/I, which most rational editors tend to avoid until they're dragged kicking and screaming before their own kangaroo court: without any semblance of natural justice, without any effective right of appeal, and without any effective checks and balances on the administrative actions taken there.

PS. I'll forgive your hyperbole if you forgive mine. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point. Tony has expressed a concern that if moved to project space and subjected to normal proposed project approval, it would become dominated by admins. What I'm saying is that they only way that could happen is that if non-admins don't care about it. What happens on AN or ANI is not really relevant to this. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You may think whatever you like, as I hope may I. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You really are paranoid. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that another one of your opinions, or can I go to my doctor tomorrow and get signed off work based on your expert diagnosis? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what is your problem with me stating an opinion? Every time I do, you come running in and saying "THAT'S AN OPINION!" Thanks for the heads up. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with you stating your opinions, but "You really are paranoid" is a statement apparently of fact; some might even call it a personal attack. I'd counsel caution before making any more personal remarks. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up. It was a joke based on your apparent uncertainty as to whether or not you're allowed to have your own opinions. You take yourself too seriously. (this is an opinion, not a statement of fact.) If you want to write this exchange up as a test case for AdminWatch or be my guest. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? Did you violate any of the administrator policies or guidelines clearly laid out on this page? Why do you apparently believe that I have even the slightest interest in writing this exchange up as a test case for AdminWatch? Which of the policy guidelines do you believe that you have violated (apart from no personal attacks, of course)? So far as I'm concerned you're just another editor with an opinion I don't agree with. I'm not exactly short of those. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator. You apparently think that I'm in violation of section 2(a) - "making personal attacks" and probably (b) "incivility." As far as I can tell, this is exactly the sort of petty crap that will soon be filling up these pages. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I really would suggest that you consider having your crystal ball serviced asap. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It's probably best to charge blindly ahead without regard for any possible consequences of our actions. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

← A much wiser man than either you or I once said: "Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must be first overcome. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fortunate, then, that I only wish for the reasonable objections to be addressed. And I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with why this can't be done in project space. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You have made no reasonable objections, only unsupported conjectures. It may be that your crysral ball is correct; if it is then that's the time for an MfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I only have one objection. THat is that this is not appropriate for user-space. If this is a proposed process it should be tagged as such and in WP space. So far, the only objection I've gotten is that this will lead to admins dominating the page. That's crystal balling. You continue to knock down straw men without actually addressing my concern. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Chunky, this is not acceptable: "You really are paranoid", even when the dialogue was becoming a game of spiralling joke/invective. May I remind you of the admin policy tenets 1 and 2 here? Both of you should calm down and try to respect each other's opinion. Chunky, it would be good to convince you of the merit of AdminWatch and to gain your support. Please don't regard the development of a better system for dealing with community angst as disrespectful to the excellent job you guys do. Improving the system for accountability to the admin policy will reinforce, not erode, the community's perception of that excellent job, and it will require changes in practice only of admins who are already bending/breaking the policy requirements. Tony (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, just answer this question: Is this a proposed process or is it something else? ALso, it's pretty tough to get on board when there's so much naked hostility towards admins here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see projectiles flying around, and would just like to say that I find some of the foregoing rather unhelpful. If we are to throw around accusations of rough justice, imagery of war and conflict, kangaroo courts (on both "sides") it is just bound to harden attitudes that users are out to seek blood for injustices or admins under attack. This is the stuff civil unrest is mad of, and so I would urge all to keep a cool head here. We are not talking about war, but repairing some of the checks and balances which appear to be malfunctioning. I actually believe that Admins stand to benefit because accusations about maladministration by a few tarnish the image of all, and if the process is well conceived and the checks and balances are functioning properly, users will get the satisfaction of knowing that Admins are on users' side. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Civil unrest arises when there are no effective channels for perceived injustices to be fairly dealt with. Like here on wikipedia right now, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, WP users have long been resigned that the judiciary is not independent and there is no-one around who wants to fix it. And then, along came Tony... Ohconfucius (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Tennis expert (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

name and shame

I see from comments above that this is, in part, intended to be a "name and shame" process. I also see that there is to be a "probationary watchlist", but as of now I can't find it. Could someone please provide the link to the probationary watchlist so I can add myself. It'll save time in the long run and I really don't care that much about having my name on a wall of shame. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The past few days have shown that these were unwise statements by me. As well, the process has been tidied up. It's becoming clearer that it needs to exclude everything but the immediate facts that are relevant to whether WP:ADMIN was breached or not. Please let me know if you have specific criticism of the process now. Tony (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase 'name and shame' is negative so probably is the wrong thing to promote. Police officers, teachers, doctors etc are always prone to complaints but the principle of measurement of performance is sound. The trouble with the current (non-Adminwatch) process is that abuse of process is tolerated when other admins support the outcome. Abuse of process is not tolerable in a fair judicial system. I am hopeful that Adminwatch will put downward pressure on abuse of process. Lightmouse (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes: I'm sorry I ever mentioned it! Tony (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK never mind the name and shame bit, I'd still like to enter my name in the probationary watchlist to start things off. As to a criticism of the process. Well it's impossible to do but the coordinators should be made up of people who have never edited Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume you're joking ... Tony (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

About which, the coordinators or adding my name to the probationary watchlist? The coordinators should be made up of people who don't edit, and have never edited, but that is impossible. Having people who never edited would ensure that the investigations were free from known bias. Adding my name, of course I was serious. This is a Wiki and everything we do is watchable so adding my name to a probationary watchlist is nothing more than what is already being done and indicates that I have no concern over others checking out my actions. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Naming and shaming" was obviously an ill-judged phrasing, and I'm sure not what was really meant. I do think it's important though that properly validated and corroborated instances of administrator abuse are documented and recorded, if only for the reason that to lapse occasionally is only human, but to do so regularly becomes a problem. If substantiated instances are removed after a week, then those systematic patterns of abuse of authority will be no more visible than they are now. I'd suggest maintaining the record for the same length of time that peccadillos are maintained in a user's block log. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about putting my name on the probationary watchlist for a week. I want it there permanently. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're only trying to make a point. Maybe being on the watchlist should be considered a privilege: like some sort of "bad boys' club", perhaps you should start collecting ASBOs... ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And the point is that it's not a big deal having my name listed as an admin that others are keeping an eye one. I should hope that other editors are keeping an eye on what I'm doing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lead

I don't mean to be petty, but I would trust something more if it didn't have a POV and/or if it was cited. This still needs citing or at least rewording. I would recommend that you would need to prove that "most users" find them ineffectual, or remove entirely. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask anyone and they will tell you. Tony (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, feel free to ask me. Lightmouse (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But, my friends, that is not the way Wikipedia works. How do you prove that "most" people find them ineffectual? You need at minimum a poll or a reliable source. It is in your opinion that they're ineffectual, opinions are not facts, friends. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You may have based your argument on a false premiss, specifically that wikipedia "works" when dealing fairly with cases of abuse of administrative power. That premiss is your opinion, no more based on fact than the premiss underlying the setting up of AdminWatch. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What?! What does that have to do with what I was talking about? Malleus, I was merely stating that the above statement needs to be sourced. Why are you trying to distract the argument? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to keep you focused on the argument Scarian. Your opinion about what needs to be sourced carries no more weight than my opinion that your comment is based on a false premiss. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why does anything on Wikipedia need to be cited? To be honest, you all could have AGF'd what I was doing: unsourced claims anywhere make something look weak and gossipy; by tidying up the weaker statements you could make the whole process look stronger and more smooth. But no, something must be wrong with me if I'm spouting complete "crap" like this, mustn't it? I must be totally out of my mind to be suggesting something like this! If you ever want this to be something that has influence, which I'm sure you secretly do, then you'll remove and/or cite any grandoise claims, Tony. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim in the link you provide does not say 'most users'. It says 'many Wikipedians'. Are you misquoting, or are you looking at something else? Lightmouse (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Misquoting: I do apologise. But I give up. Keep it however it works best for you, guys. I'm sure that's what matters most to the people who have had troubles with those darn awful admins in the past. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Many of us have had trouble with those "darn awful admins in the past", and have had no recourse other than being fortunate enough to have had a more sympathetic admin watchlisting our talk pages. A shame you can't empathise with the disempowered Scarian. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

See "darn". - Anyway, there is no such thing as "empowered" or "disempowered" on Wikipedia, and I'm afraid I must consider your views (Notice I said views and not you - emphasising for an explicit reason) on that to be naive; admins don't have any power whatsoever. If admins had power then I'm sure all their detractors would be blocked by now, wouldn't you think that would be the logical outcome of that? But it appears not have happened, clearly. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a citation to the MfD page; "many Wikipedians" have already voiced that belief in just two brief sessions. Tony (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Now who's being naive? "Admins have no power whatsoever"? What's the point of RfA in that case? It would be better for you (Scarian) to base whatever argument you want to make on the facts, not your own blind faith in a broken and corrupt system. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Malleus, why don't you propose something to get rid of the position of administrator, if you despise them so? Or, perhaps, run for RfA again, and try and prove that is there is some good left in the Wiki-world and that you'll be a much better alternative to everyone else. Do you think you'll be a better alternative to everyone else? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you choose to misrepresent my position? And to make it worse indulge yourself in a personal attack against me? Perhaps you may like a few moments to reflect on the wisdom of your comments. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, sir, I must respectfully disagree with you; I did not indulge in a personal attack, I would do no such thing. But, regardless, this discussion has run its course. I did consider getting my mother involved to settle it, but, you know... I then remembered that this place, strangely enough, isn't the playground. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 06:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

While I:

• appreciate the enormous amount of work that's gone into this
• believe that it is a noble effort to address something that is a problem
• think that considerable thought has been put into avoiding some of the more obvious pitfalls

I nonetheless believe that the MfD (whatever its ultimate results) shows that the proposal has little to no chance of achieving consensus, let alone the kind of mandate that such an important proposal would really want.

I therefore strongly recommend to the editors who've led on this proposal to rethink the proposal in its broadest terms and encourage them to ensure that their response amounts to more than mere deckchair rearranging. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not helpful as framed, in such vague terms. What exactly did you want re-arranged, and why is a politically motivated MfD useful in predicting what the community (all WPians, not just a few admins) wants? Tony (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The MfD does appear to be an abuse of process. Lightmouse (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I'm sorry if you found my comments unhelpful. All I am trying to do is point out the obvious... that the level of opposition to the scheme, as evidenced at the MfD, shows that this does not have and will not gain consensus, let alone a mandate (which you would ideally want) without wholesale changes. Vague terms is all I can do - what those changes are, I do not know.

Lightmouse, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the MfD, it shows a considerable of opposition to Admin Watch, as it is currently framed. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me rather to show considerable support for the idea. I guess your glass is half empty, whereas mine is half full. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For a mandate, I'd be looking for considerably more (or less) than half full or empty. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In any case, it is an abuse of process to use an MFD to measure support for an idea. Lightmouse (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There are probably other editors like myself who don't support the MfD, but don't support Admin Watch in its current form either. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, many of the "Delete" comments (I think entirely from admins) show a basic misunderstanding of the process. There seems to be a frenzied herd mentality in shooting it down. This mentality is all too common in cabals, and is extremely unhealthy. Do you go along with the "Attack page" one, for example? Tony (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully buy-in to any of the delete opinions. Hence I chimed in with a "Keep". But me, personally disagreeing with them doesn't mean too much. I'm just one editor. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Dweller here, for a process to be accepted by the community as a whole there needs to be wide spread consensus for it. That doesn't include a MFD split on the idea. This needs, at some point, a much wider community discussion showing clear consensus for it. This has not happened and you can't tuck in away in user space and expect it to go live... RxS (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a concern that most, if not all, of the objections to this process are coming from administrators. The schism which is opening up between administrators and non-administrators has reached an unhealthy level IMO. Doing nothing in some obscure wikipedia talking shop is really not an option, and nor is starting premature and vexatious MfDs. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-binding

As a piece of constructive criticism, I suggest the text of this page be emphasised to ensure that there can be no confusion or ambiguity as to the fact that this process cannot issue any binding decision, enforcement or judgement on any Wikipedian, in the sense that it cannot place an administrator on parole, revert restrictions, block them, or desysop them. The current text of the page fails to emphasise this sufficiently, in my opinion, and thus leads to confusion (and most likely more vexatious complaints by those not understanding the intent of the process). Daniel (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree entirely. Making the changes now. Please see if you like them. Tony (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In the nutshell bit, "behaviour" seems a bit of a loaded, POVvy-type of word and very very broad. Is there something a bit more neutral yet specific? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but "actions", the only alternative I can think of, may be too restrictive. "Behaviour" is a technical word; in psychology, it's used very broadly—I studied eye-movement behaviour. Tony (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Misuse

Do you have plans for what to do with/about editors who repeatedly post vexatious or trivial complaints? AN and ANI often suffer from people coming back repeatedly with rewarmed non-event complaints, so I'd assume that a star chamber would attract a similar dispiriting problem. Or will repeated summarily moving the template from one section to another and then removing it or however it works, will that discourage it? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 16:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone doing that would be disrupting Wikipeida and they could then be blocked, after being warned with the correct number of templates. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather say that someone doing that ought to be encouraged not to continue to do that, not that such behaviour provides the justification for a block. Perhaps, for instance, the reasons why that someone was behaving in that manner ought to be looked into. It may, for instance, have its roots in a past perceived injustice that once aired would solve the problematic behaviour. In any event, I wouldn't personally like to see the administrator coordinators threatening anyone with blocks because of complaints made on AdminWatch, except in very exceptional circumstances. Uninvolved administrators are of course perfectly free to take their own view on an appropriate course of action. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying the administrator coordinators would threaten anybody. I would have assumed that if the coordinators (admin or otherwise) were doing their job they would have looked into why the person was behaving like that. If they didn't, then I can't see that any Wikipedia editor will trust that particular coordinator. Anyway what happens if they refuse to stop adding the vexatious or trivial complaint after they have been encouraged not to? We just let them keep on? If you allow that then the whole process wil self-destruct right away. If you want this to run and to move forward then it's in your interest to see that an editor making repeated attempts to post vexatious or trivial complaints is stopped. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but it's not "in my interest", it's in everyone's interest to ensure the process works, works smoothly, and is seen to be fair. But I don't see the need to come up with procedures for dealing with every possible hypothetical situation. The process will no doubt evolve to deal whatever actually happens. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the process will die on its arse like all other attempts at this type of thing unless these issues are addressed now. An answer is needed before launch, because without one the shreds of credibility this star chamber will have will be ripped away at the first sign of this problem. Not because admins will complain, but because editors will lose faith. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I really do wish that I could have the same faith in your crystal ball that you so obviously have. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be an edit war and after warning they get blocked. Hey, I block them and then I get a complaint raised about me for attempting to silence admin critics. Redvers is right though, it's easier to think of and sort out potential problems before they happen, rather than trying to react when they do. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt that would happen, as any potential complainant would need to be specific about which of the administrator guidelines you had breached by making the block. I'm nor aware that there's any specific policy which forbids silencing admin critics; a case would need to be made that you had made the block as a punishment, for instance, rather than to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Something that I'm sure you wouldn't do anyway. Nobody (that I've seen anyway) is complaining, or likely to complain about use of admin tools when done in accordance with the guidelines. Blocking per se isn't a problem and is no doubt justified in some cases, perhaps even the overwhelming majority of cases. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a crystal ball, it's experience. As an admin, I dare say the people behind this process assume that I'm evil and power hungry, alas, but in fact I'm neither. What I am is experienced. I've been using this account since 2004, so I've seen this type of thing come and this type of thing go. Never quite so nakedly announcing that it intends to go for and destroy unnamed certain admins but refusing to provide evidence in advance, but nevertheless I have seen it. And previous attempts have died on their arses because nobody is willing to think of these types of issues (including the strangely verboten subject of clerking) in advance. This process-for-managing-other-processes-that-manage-processes-that-send-processes-forward-to-a-process-that-will-desysop won't die because admins will ignore it (although they will), it'll die because the exceptions haven't be thought of, or have been thought of and have been ignored, and thus editors in general will lose faith. As has always happened. Although I'm sure this will be the exception, of course. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 21:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Although, there's a point: which admin will block for someone disrupting the star chamber, since doing so would seem to guarantee being pulled up in front of the star chamber by a sock/friend of the blocked user? The judges/coordinators would need to be studiously neutral in dealing with that, but since our elected administrators cannot be trusted with that (or some of them, but unnamed, so any of them) it's clearly a tough job. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a rather colourful turn of phrase, and an apparently vivid imagination, but it would probably be as well to stick to the facts instead of scaremongering. Your characterisation that AdminWatch "intends to go for and destroy unnamed certain admins" might be appealing at a political rally, but it has no place in a rational discourse, which I hope this is. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe have a rule that means that editor X (including alternate accounts; socking to get around this restriction isn't on) can only file about admin Y once per Z months? (Maybe Z could be two or three?) Daniel (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Who would enforce it? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, you should read through WP:AN and WP:ANI some time for multiple examples of people complaining about the use of admin tools even when used within guidelines. Here's one example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive500#admin abuse. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That simply indicates to me that AN and AN/I don't work for the kind of situations AdminWatch is designed to deal with. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, I'd be more than happy to block anyone disrupting the page by re-adding a worthless complaint. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum said, "I'm nor aware that there's any specific policy which forbids silencing admin critics;..." Well perhaps there isn't a policy that forbids that but I would imagine that common senese might tell even the most clueless admin that blocking someone for being a critic is probably a bad thing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm as trigger-happy as the best of them, but the moment someone makes a complaint about my tool usage, the buttons go (mentally) offline as policy says. And blocking someone for posting to this process would automatically lead to a complaint, so tool usage is clearly not allowed. Although I do block anyone that threatens to kill me (plenty of those - oh, but there's plenty of those) or turns up on my talk page and with their first edit has a go because I'm a queer (or other less exciting words on the same subject) which policy doesn't say is allowed. I suppose, on that basis, I should go on the star chamber's watchlist of abusive admins. Even though you'd find no admin willing to unblock and no non-abusive editor willing to complain. But I don't know if I'm already on the list of admins who are abusing their tools now, since this project declines to publish that list. I kinda hope so, actually! :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no such list, and I think that Tony has made it clear elsewhere that historical complaints will not be dealt with by AdminWatch. Whatever dark secrets you have hidden in your cupboard are quite safe. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to argue, but to quote you from earlier and further up: "Do none of the 1,500 current admins just bluntly use their tools without judgement?" If you believe that none do, then there is no need for this AdminWatch process, I quite agree. That's not what I believe though. So there are admins currently abusing tools now. They need to be named in front of ArbCom rather than just hinted about here. And yes, this list needs to go to ArbCom even if I'm on it myself! :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no such list. How much plainer can it be said? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool enough! But, when you said "Do none of the 1,500 current admins just bluntly use their tools without judgement?" If you believe that none do, then there is no need for this AdminWatch process, I quite agree. That's not what I believe though. who did you mean? Because it's a very serious accusation. If, however, you withdraw it now, then that's cool too. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean anyone, I'm just applying that lost skill of "common sense". I have made no accusations against anyone, and I do not take kindly to your repeated insinuations that I have. I would counsel you to reflect carefully on your own behaviour here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've withdrawn the accusation, although obviously I'm disappointed that you've done it with an intimated threat, this time aimed at me personally. But if you've got diffs to back up what you (aren't quite) saying, please present them as, again, it's quite serious. Probably best to do that on my talk page as it's not relevant here, but I'll go with your judgment. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I really would suggest, once again, that you take a little time out to reflect on your behaviour here, and the accusations that you have now chosen to hurl around. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

First "kangaroo court", then "star chamber"; perhaps we should thank Яedvers for injecting some excitement into the planning for what strikes me as a reasonable and innocuous proposal for machine-gunning all us evil admins deterring us evil admins from clicking our favorite buttons so capriciously. (It may already be having an effect: I haven't blocked anyone for days!) I'm just wondering when we'll see the first reference to Judge Roy Bean. -- Hoary (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, there will probably be the odd attack on this page, or repeated vexatious complaints. We deal with it the same way as elsewhere: you ask an uninvolved admin to take the appropriate action within the guidelines. It's just something you have to deal with in a wiki. Tony (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge commented above: "you should read through WP:AN and WP:ANI some time for multiple examples of people complaining about the use of admin tools even when used within guidelines. Here's one example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive500#admin abuse."

Heck, a couple of clicks and you see engaging, detailed, specific posts to this new user about their edit-warring from Karanacs and Moni3, and then a slightly frustrated, well-deserved one from non-admin SandyGeorgia (FAC Delegate). If this were the subject of a complaint, I'm wondering which policy requirements the complainant would choose and justify with diffs. I can't see why it wouldn't be dismissed pronto from Stage 1. It would be up to the coordinator, in their procedural message to the complainant, as to whether to have another quick try at persuading the user to be reasonable.

I'm more interested in thinking through the harder cases, where things are closer to the decision-making boundaries and deeper probing is required. Any examples? Tony (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, that link was only in reply to "Nobody (that I've seen anyway) is complaining, or likely to complain about use of admin tools when done in accordance with the guidelines." I was a bit surprised that Malleus Fatuorum had never seen one of the many frivolous complaints. I'm sure that a complaint like that would be removed from Adminwatch right away, but it happens all the time on ANI. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant complaining here; I ought to have made that clearer. Of course I'm aware what a pit of vipers ANI is. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And I thought ANI was just a crazy den of pigs. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Icon

Hi Tony, would you consider moving the icon in the "Aims" section up a bit? It's making the [edit] for the below section stick out. ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tony (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

I have blocked 6 IP's in the last few days, CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Of those two appear to have no edits and the other four have not edited in a long time. If a complaint was made would good faith be extended or not? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, is there a practice of discouraging the use of IP anon addresses in this way? 202.79.209.80, for example, appears to have done nothing wrong except for breaching MoS on changing upper- to lower-case initial at the start of a title (1 December). Is it the dormancy per se that is an issue? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Tony (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though I'm merely another token informal representative here of the forces of darkness, your very question puzzles me. If somebody hasn't edited recently, why block him? (Male pronoun deliberate, for a presumed male referent.) Your most recent block (the only one I bothered to look at) was of this person. As far as I can see, he has made one (1) edit since late October, an addition of rather tiresome whimsy that I have just now reverted. Wondering what I was missing, I looked at his talk page. Your block notice doesn't say why he's blocked. Matters of "faith" aside, your block looks plain bizarre. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, I assume that you checked the deleted contributions and found nothing, or little, there? That's my point though, would you both be willing to accept the fact that all of those IP's were blocked following policy or would you require more information? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I checked and found that there wasn't a single deleted contribution. I'm not offering my services as "coordinator" and would decline if (as is most unlikely) I were invited, so this is all rather unreal. I'm willing to accept that the IP was blocked in accordance with some policy but I can't imagine what that policy would be and if I were a coordinator I might very well ask (unless of course I've misunderstood what coordinators do). Certainly I wouldn't think "CBW seems a pleasant chap and is always offering a gorilla, which is most amicable of him; I shall therefore assume that he knows what he's doing and shan't ask anything of him." -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable, unless there's clear evidence of, say, vandalism/3RR/consistent rudeness, by these anons. There's just a chance they might say "Oh, what fate will befall me if I get an account?" We don't want to lose people who might just become valuable contributors. Tony (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. The IP's were all blocked because they were adding a valid phone number to my talk/user page and making a rather unpleasant attack on another user, not me. I nver block if the attacks are on me, as I really don't care about stuff like that. The edits have all been oversighted (User talk:Alison#Talk page) or at least deleted. See User:Sidonuke/RedPenOfDoom for a partial list of the original ip and it's new friends. They were adding the number to other pages but most are semi-protected now and it's easier to have the vandalism in one place. By the way the gorilla is The Goon Show running jokes#Grytpype-Thynne's Catchphrases. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, hit save too soon. Just wanted to point out that there may be no evidence and that it's possible, not in this case, that the admin in question may not be able to comment on what has happened. There has to be some good faith shown by the coordinators if an admin says that the action was taken in accordance with policy and it can't be discussed. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla

Whew, it's lucky that I didn't unblock him or block you for going rouge or whatever. (I don't recall ever having blocked an admin; but there's always a first time, and what a dramatic Christmas present that and the ensuing brouhaha would be for both of us.)

I suppose this is similar to OTRS or whatever it's called. I've always appreciated that that had to be hush-hush but often chafed under the degree of its hush-hushedness.

I still don't fully understand this. So, some lowdown dirty rat has been using various IP numbers to post what purports to be, and perhaps actually is, somebody's phone number. While I'm all in favor of short, boring block messages, I don't immediately understand why this IP wasn't blocked with a message saying something like "Blocked for one or more oversighted edits". No obvious need even to hint at the nature of these edits; anybody interested could ask. Hmm, most likely you blocked him before they were oversighted; but if so, why not revisit the talk page and add this information after the oversighting? Anyway, while I can imagine situations in which a blocking admin can and should refuse to discuss the block, I don't see why any block should have no indication of what it's for (although I'd make some allowance for the busy-ness of the blocking admin, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I learn things every day. I agree with all that Hoary says, except that "busy-ness" is but a temporary excuse for not following the "communication" requirement (6a over the page). I expect AdminWatch would be asking for this to be followed as soon as possible, to avoid the ol' slippery slope; however, the low-down dirty rat is unlikely to come complaining here. Tony (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP was blocked either before or after the pages were oversighted/deleted. Part of the problem is seeing, removing the material and blocking the next one that they use. They hang up and dial in again with a new IP, other admins would get those IP and a range block seems to be working right now. Yes, I should have gone back and at least tagged the pages with a link to User:Sidonuke/RedPenOfDoom. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to; "admin in question may not be able to comment on what has happened", really? I know we're being hypothetical, and can't imagine every case, but surely they'd be able to explain their actions to a satisfactory amount. Like you said above earlier "IP's blocked for adding a phone number to talk/user page and attacking another user, block oversighted", I'd say that would be an adequate amount of information in your defence, it's not like you'd have to give out the phone number or anything, and you can always find a way of proving they were oversighted. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, knock it off

I count six times on this page that you've used "kangaroo court" or "kangaroo judges". This appears to be not only a derogatory comment on this project but also a slur on Tony who is from Australia – the lamest kind of personal attack.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But after exhausting the rhetorical possibilities of "kangaroo court", Яedvers moved on to "star chamber", which is hardly Australian. (As I mentioned above, I'm waiting for him to invoke the saintly name of Judge Roy Bean.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well based on several comments above about civilians I pick drumhead court-martial. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That is good. Roget would be proud. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. Since commenting here, I've been watching this page and periodically checking in on the discussion, and the exchange with Malleus was just ridiculous, Redvers. Maybe time to have a seat. لennavecia 15:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't commented on this page for 2 days, Jennavecia, so warning me off now seems a bit otiose; I didn't know Tony is Australian, Goodmorningworld, and "kangaroo court" is not an Australian-derived phrase, at least according to the Wikipedia article on it; and I've already used "drumhead", CambridgeBayWeather, so I got there first.

I've noticed that WP:AGF doesn't apply that much on this page and that several people here are happy to make ad hominem attacks against contributors whilst I've been commenting on the content. I said at the start that this process would attract a certain type of editor who would want to run it. It wouldn't bode well for this process if that was already happening, would it? Still, I'll revert to Plan A, from before I was invited to comment here: I'll simply ignore the process, as most admins will. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 15:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you speaking on behalf of most admins. You weren't just commenting on content; you were personalizing comments by others, specifically Malleus, and then drawing that out into unnecessary dramatics, and you bring up AGF? Also, I didn't notice the date stamps, I just knew it was recent, regardless, it was the weekend, so it's a reasonable assumption that you may respond here again on Monday. لennavecia 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, as the sign at the top of AdminWatch says, it relies on good faith to achieve its outcomes. Tony (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd really not recommend commenting or even acknowledging the word "Kangaroo Court". The less fuss made over it, the less likely it'll be to catch on, and unfortunately it's an incredibly catchy slur. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, calling someone out, in a new thread, by name in the header probably not going to be the most effective way to calm things down. Additionally, I don't think a user calling something what they honestly appear to think it is (and, let's face it, it is not that far of a stretch, same as arbcom), is a slur, unless you are just trying to be dramatic. Maybe time to archive at least this section? SQL^{Query me!} 17:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd agree, are you allowed to archive just one section though? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is Tony's page, so I would leave archiving decisions up to him in general. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A sub page for current examples?

Would it be a good idea to set up a separate sub-page with current "controversies" (for want of a better term) involving complaints by editors about administrator misconduct?

I'll start with this RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Law Lord. Apparently, user:Law Lord got upset about administrator actions. He put up a message box on his user page that said, "Semi-Retired" and added the words, "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners."

Rather than recapitulating the long sequence of events that followed, I would recommend you to read up on it at the RfC page.

A couple of questions come to mind.

1. First of all, would this case benefit from being instead handled by AdminWatch(provisional title)?
2. What service could an AW "coordinator"(provisional title) provide that the general discussion developing under the RfC structure could not?
3. Would the complaint be accepted by AW in the first place or rejected as "vexatious"?
4. Administrators are weighing in on this RfC and on its Talk page: are they throwing their weight behind their fellow admins (whose actions are what prompted the RfC)?
5. Is the presence of these admins intimidating to the complainant and to editors who would support their point of view?
6. Conversely, is there a "lynch mob" atmosphere developing on the RfC pages, in which a horde of editors brandishing torches and pitchforks are ganging up on hard-working, unpaid volunteers?

I'm sure more questions could be asked. In the end, though, it comes back to the question I first asked above: would this case benefit from being instead handled by AdminWatch(provisional title)?
If yes, why and how?
If no, why not… keeping in mind that, if the answer not only for this but also for many other examples is "No," this could be a sign that AW may not be needed after all.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see, I would suggest that if Law Lord thinks some definable number of administrators have violated WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, that he file a request at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Looking at the alerts page, I see a wide variety of admins and non-admins commenting, so I don't think there is a selection issue.

I see LL has been on WP for four years and only has 2 blocks, which leads me to believe he would not make a complaint lightly or be vexatious

As to admins commenting at the RFC, what percentage of the comments are from admins? There are 10,000 users with an edit in the last 3 months (I think), 1,000 of whom have administrator rights. Is the number at RFC greatly at variance to a predictable ratio of some sort?

As to what AdminWatch coordinators could provide, I'll leave that to Tony1 to define, with the caveat that I suspect if the goal is to encourage better self-regulation of administrator activity, the pronouncement of an individual coordinator or a small group of coordinators probably would not carry as much weight as a viewpoint placed at an RFC by a non-admin that was endorsed by 20 other non-admins. MBisanz ^talk 15:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MBisanz. I must admit, the last point has occurred to me also. By the way, what are the opinions regarding my idea to set up a separate page for actual cases? Unfortunately I would not know how to do this if people said yeah go ahead.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest using the {{NOINDEX}} on any pages/talk pages of this project, as it is standard practice to remove RFARs/RFCs from Googledexing by either that method of using Robots.txt, in the interest of personal privacy. MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I put __NOINDEX__ at the top of the articles I'm working on in my user space. Is there a list of what pages are routinely kept away from Google's prying eyes… I believe it is the case for the WP noticeboards already? Also, a guideline that recommends where and when to use __NOINDEX__?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the closest we have to a guideline is the moribund proposal at Wikipedia:NOINDEX of noticeboards, MediaWiki:Robots.txt shows pages hardcoded for de-googling, but the Special:WhatLinksHere function is the only way to figure out which pages are using {{NOINDEX}}, which is something like 50,000 pages. Also, as of now the noticeboards do not appear to be de-googled. MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

To specifically answer the questions, I numbered them (I hope you don't mind):

1. I don't know that we can answer that now. Without knowing what kind of results will come from this, I dare say that most abusive admins will probably ignore this process...
2. Again, not sure this can be answered now. Probably anything that could be said as part of AW, could be said there.
3. This would probably be a borderline case. As is obvious from the RFC, some users would automatically dismiss this complaint as frivolous and move on. Others, like myself, would find misuse of administrative position.
4. Well, at the point the question was asked, it was a bit lopsided. Whether or not they were backing a fellow admin or just voicing their honest opinion, AGF defaults to the latter, regardless, there's been additional input since and the support has balanced, with a few admins taking the side of LL.
5. This is a good question. Does the admin participation serve to intimidate... probably, but we'd need to hear from those who felt intimidated to be sure. I would hope that wasn't the case. Although, with an admin jumping into the situation to begin with and using his tools, then other admins defending the arguably appropriate use of protection, I would think LL would feel a bit intimidated, especially wen one takes into account the talk page comments.
6. I would say that the behavior by at least one non-admin and at least one admin is a bit shameful and inappropriate... also a bit hypocritical. Is it a lynch mob? Eh, don't know that I'd take it that far, but it's still bad times. لennavecia 16:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments at the AN/I page. Tony (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tautological policy: "An admin should follow Wikipedia policies."

There is a policy: "An admin should follow Wikipedia policies.". All policy breaches will be a breach of that one. Do we need people to quote it? Lightmouse (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reconcile the above with If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. :-) MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about this—but there it is, staring out at us at the top of the "Administrator conduct" policy: "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies". I suppose that, in strict legal terms, it elevates what binds us all (the following of WP policies) to a specific admin-related policy. If an admin breaches a WP policy in such a way that is relevant to the assessment of a perceived unfair action against a complainant, it could be cited as a breach. Tony (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Invoking IAR for admin actions should be an extremely rare event. It happens much too often and is almost always evidence of poor judgment. لennavecia 05:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep; the first impulse should be to try to improve the rule if it's inappropriate in a particular instance—not to ignore it. Giving the system the benefit of one's experience in applying the rules will benefit the community as a whole. Tony (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that IAR should be rare for admins in general and extremely rare for any particular admin. Any admin action on the basis of IAR is, by definition, a breach of the rules. Therefore an Adminwatch claim can be brought. I think this is an important check or balance. Lightmouse (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Qualities required of coordinators

Dear colleagues: your comments are sought on the first draft of these qualities (here). I don't want to put good people off standing, and perhaps the bar is too high in terms of the way the qualities are expressed. The only thing concerning me about having six coordinators (four plus two) is that not enough people will put their hands up. The alternative might be four coordinators (three plus one)? (Remember, it should not matter to a complainant whether the coordinator who manages their case is non-admin or admin: this is meant to be a coming together of the two groups.) Tony (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lessons?

I just took a stroll down memory lane and reread WP:ESPERANZA.

I maintain that I appreciate the good intentions behind this particular venture, but there were also good intentions behind Esperanza. And the lessons learned there have been memorialised on the short project page. --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Going live" suggestion

Might be worth adding a line to the nutshell box about when it's envisioned that this may "go live", even if it's just to say it's not known <grins>.

Doubly useful, because it'll help clarify that it's not already live! --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Process for a blocked user

I am starting a discussion here about the process for a blocked user. In the past I have said that the process for a blocked user is unsatisfactory and the response was "don't get blocked". Blocked users have to watch discussions about their case without being able to join in. Furthermore, there are technical features of blocking that are difficult to use and difficult to reverse. Comprehensive block features may be appropriate for vandals and sockpuppets but may be inappropriate for other editors and should be a last resort. I propose the following:

• by default, an editor blocked by an admin asserting a breach of policy on article content should not be blocked from discussions
• a block may be extended to non-article space by a different admin if another breach of policy occurs

Thus a blocked editor would be able to participate in Adminwatch. What do people think? Lightmouse (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just confirm that you are suggesting that another blocking layer be added? So if I go to block someone I can choose what namespace they can and can not edit? Is something like that possible? If it is it should be turned on right now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, though I do remember a tool added to someones monobook that prevented them from editing certain namespaces, can't remember where it was though. Usually, reasonable editors can be unblocked if they agree to only edit a certain namespace, I can remember many an occasion where an editor is unblocked to be involved about discussion, or in some circumstances the discussion can be transcluded.

Autoblocks are a neccessary evil, though generally it should be avoided when blocking bots due to the obvious consequences. Admins aren't infallible though and occasionally forget. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Din't think that it was, it's too useful a feature to not be used already. I that case my earlier comment would apply. The unblocking to allow an editor to take part in things like a RFC are alread done. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Namespace blocks - If it isn't technically possible, that is a shame. Worth asking.
• Autoblocks - I understand why they exist but I was under the impression that all admins used them all the time. It is good news that they are optional. I was recently a victim of an autoblock when somebody blocked my bot, I hope you are right in your suggestion that incorrect autoblocks are uncommon. I am also under the impression that autoblocks don't get lifted when the original block is lifted. Can you clarify that for me too? Lightmouse (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• special partial unblocks - I was not aware of this feature. I find the unblock process rather difficult. Fortunately, I am not familiar with it and most of the people we want to use it are likely to be unfamiliar with the unblock process. If there are such options, then they should be listed in the block template. Lightmouse (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock is turned on by default and ther is nothing on the blocking page to indicate that it should be turned off when blocking a bot. That would explain why you got caught. A note needs adding to the page saying that autoblock should be disabled when blocking a bot but I'm not sure where to edit it. Sometime I do notice that the autoblock does stay if the user is unblocked before the end of the 24 hour period. "special partial unblocks" is a total unblocking of an editor. They give an agreement not to edit anywhere other than the permitted space or risk being reblocked. Truthfully if you have got to the point of being indefinitely blocked, with an ongoing RFC/Arbitration or the wish to file one, then it's a good chance that you are going to know about being unblocked to take part in the process. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an "autoblocked disabled" feature that admins can use, and should use in the case of bots, especially those running off the toolserver. If the toolserver IP addresss is blocked, then a large number of bots become blocked. The autoblock is an entirely separate block to that of the original blockee, ergo they don't get lifted automatically if someone is unblocked before 24 hours is up.

As CambridgeBayWeather says, there is no mediawiki feature that allows namespace blocking, "special partial unblocks" is simply an agreement with the editor concerned. Woody (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't a blocked user contribute via the email address we discussed above? That is, their contributions would be through the coordinator. The process here is intended to be structurally simple (two entries each for complainant and admin—possibly with extensions on application to the coordinator, but I hope in most cases this will not need to be granted). Tony (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A blocked user should be able to communicate (before and after, but especially during his/her block) with the party/parties who blocked him/her, and in any forum in which his/her behaviour is being discussed, provided it is done in a manner consistent with acceptable behaviour on WP. Not to be able to do so is a violation of one of the most important tenets of free speech and the right of due process. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In a fair system that would be true. Wikipedia is not run in a fair way though, sadly. Hence the need for something like AdminWatch. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

When I was blocked and was frustrated at only being able to state my case on my own talk page, which is as good as shouting to oneself in a locked room when the persons who sought to block me were able to forum shop and vilify me all over WP. I do not doubt the need for AdminWatch, as there appears to be quite a bit of pent-up anger and resentment from existing users who may have met with such abuses, not to mention those who may have left the project as a result. WP is full of cliques and cabals, AdminWatch will only be a part of the solution, IMHO. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been there as well; couldn't agree with you more. It's a problem that the administrators seem strangely blind to. AdminWatch can be no more than a start, but something has to be done to reverse the increasing alienation between administrators and non-administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Free speech. 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? The problem is if a user is edit warring on an article, for example, and refuses to stop even after being warned, then really the only option is to block. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is that blocked users become also disenfranchised, unable to present a defence for what one administrator may have interpreted as "edit warring". They then have to depend on whatever wikifriends they've made to argue their case, unable to do it themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, edit-warring usually starts because of content dispute. I did say "provided it is done in a manner consistent with acceptable behaviour on WP". Hurling abuse would be a breach of WP:CIVIL, a blockable offense, and the user ought to be so reminded. Excepting habitually uncivil individuals, most people would not grumble if they believed they were being treated fairly, and being extremely rude and uncivil could be symptomatic of severe frustration of a sense of gross injustices being meted out. Nevertheless, being able to speak to one's own defense is a tenet of natural justice. Oh, what do you mean 'abuse the unblock template'? The only place a user can put it is their own talk page... still shouting into a closed room, methinks. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• For all the negativity, WhoWatches has made a vital point: there is an inherent downside to many admin actions, where taken incautiously—it increases the likelihood of vandalism. But back to the practical matter: is it practical and reasonable that a blocked user should communicate with the coordinator here via the AdminWatch email? I see no problems, aside from a slight inconvenience. Tony (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to be the only practical proposition, given that the wikimedia developers have not yet come to terms with the idea that wikis aren't like every other internet forum. Or at least that this one isn't. This project has no vision, and is suffering as a result. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with others, the inability to speak in a case against you is unfair. It seems that blocking article space only is not a current technical option, that is very disappointing. An email backdoor is one workaround and I would support that. However, I am curious as to how the user talk page is not blocked. If that is an exception, we should be able to make other exceptions. Can Adminwatch also be an exception? Lightmouse (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question and I've asked User talk:Brion VIBBER#ser talk:Tony1/AdminWatch if something like that is possible. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind it wouldn't work. An editor is blocked, posts an unblock notice on their talk page, which is declined. They come to the process page and post there. The coordinator declines or accepts that the block was valid. There is then no way to stop the blocked editor from reposting on the process page without fully protecting it and stopping everybody from posting. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Drifting & template

Looking back over the last few days I get the impression that we are starting to drift away from the orignal purpose of the proposal. Rather than looking at claims of admin abuse we are looking at providing a forum for blocked editors. We really don't need that.

However, after saying that, I think a template would be useful. A blocked editor who can still edit their own talk page would be able to post it asking that a claim be posted here by one of the coordinators. The template should explain that they must provide all necessary differences andcomply with CIVIL. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But emailing to AdminReview by the blocked user would still be required, since it would be clumsy for the user to write their submissions on that template or on their own talk page. And it wouldn't work where the talk page has been blocked too. Tony (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at it more as a visible process, plus anybody seeing it could post it to the process page. The more of this that can be done on Wikipedia the better. Look at the complaints about actions taken that others perceive to have been based on off Wiki discussions. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My technical/computer skills are narrow. If someone is able to organise an on-site way of doing this, it would have that significant advantage of openness (ironically, a form of security for all parties). Until then, the email option appears to be the default position. Tony (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming the project and the officers

As this project progresses towards a trial launch, it might be good to start thinking again about appropriate designations, both for the project itself and the elected editors who will handle complaints. I have suggested before that AdminWatch and coordinators, while fine as working titles, are not so appropriate for the roll-out version: "AdminWatch" can be seen as antagonistic, "coordinators" can be seen as misleading since only one project officer at a time will handle any particular case.

My preference would be for a rename of the project to WP:Ombudsman and for the officers to be called WP:Ombudsmen.

What do you all think?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Too generic. Like it or lump it, this proposal is specifically about monitoring the behaviour of administrators, not about mediating in other areas of wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, "AdminWatch" definitely has to be changed. "AdminReview" perhaps? "Coordinators" is okay by me. faithless (^speak) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not WP:Ombudsman or WP:Ombudsmen as they both were already shut down. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up that information… I feel like an archaelogist in Egypt's Valley of the Kings, discovering that most graves are already empty… but the big find might yet lie ahead! In any case, if the two projects have been shut down then they won't be needing their names any longer, will they?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• AdminReview is fine by me; it can be changed thus on its relocation into public space, which should be when the election is announced, I guess. Project officer sounds a little bureaucratic and doesn't roll off the lips well. Any improvements on coordinator? I don't mind facilitator, but am happy to retain the current term. Tony (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• How about 'monitors'? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected this page for the time being following a series of TOR proxy IPs editwarring to insert abuse on the page. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And the er main page too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Malcolm. I was hard at work with a client and unaware of the drama here. I'm distressed to see the level of anger in this person. Even if s/he thinks I'm "a pitiful fool", I am open to email contact to try to resolve the angst; it is no good for the project, and no good for the user. If WhoWatches does initiate such contact, it would be on a strictly confidential basis, of course. Tony (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Admins keeping this page on their Watchlist

Well, there are going to be admins who will be doing so - so I thought that there should be an opportunity for those that don't mind advertising the fact (who may or may not be considered as supporting the initiative) placing their names on a list. I do not believe that anyone will be more or less apprehensive of opening a complaint against an admin because their name is listed here, since it will not cover all those who will be keeping an eye on it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins watchlisting these pages

• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Supporting this initiative.
  
• MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lazulilasher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Not sure yet, but I trust Tony
  
• Nancy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I too support this initiative
• Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Supporting
• Faithlessthewonderboy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Supporting in theory
• Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I do not care
• Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Supporting if done properly, I too trust Tony
• Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I want to see how this turns out. Contrast with CAT:AOTR will be interesting
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) support and willing to participate
• Ched Davis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) I still have a lot of things to get up to speed on, but I'm interested to see where it goes

Significant problem? Incorrect admin use of autoblock for bots

In an earlier discussion, we briefly discussed the problem of incorrect blocks due to autoblocks on bots. It was suggested that this was an occasional problem. My recent experience from a very small sample (three blocks) was that 100% of blocks on bots are incorrectly using autoblocks. It would help admins and non-admins if we could identify how often this occurs. I don't know what is the acceptable percentage but I would like it to be less than 'rare' and that is quite a low percentage. I don't know if this is an AdminReview issue but I would hate to start an AdminReview process against individual admins if they are also victims of process failure.

If incorrect autoblocking is a problem that is anything other than extremely rare, then we need to work together to reduce the incidence. Perhaps we should do a survey where bot owners are more likely to see the question. What do people think? Lightmouse (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The point here is that I simply don't think many admins know that they shouldn't generally use autoblock on bot accounts. Most legitimate and sanctioned bot accounts aren't blocked anyway so most admins don't know that they should disable the autoblock. Autoblock is enabled by default, you have to deselect it as an admin. I think a simple addition to the mediawiki block text should do it to be honest. Woody (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that would be a good start. How do we get that to happen? Lightmouse (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An additional fact is that many bot owners are admins and can undo incorrect autoblocks themselves. Furthermore, several bot owners claim to use blocking as a routine method of permitting 'stop' control (I am told Smackbot and others use a 'push the button to block the bot' method). So being an admin makes life easier for many bot owners. I am sure there are many factors that makes this problem under-reported. Lightmouse (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and have just done it myself. I think many bot owners have a "stop the bot" link which blocks the bot but which includes the autoblock disabled in the link itself. As I say, it is rare for a bot to have to be blocked, especially by those who don't know about bots. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Woody's edit was removed based on the fact that the MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist should cover it. However, I partially restored the edit based on the fact that some bots are not running on the toolserver and so would require knowing their IP which would also give you the IP of the bots owner. I left some more information at User talk:Lucasbfr#MediaWiki:Blockiptext. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but let's discuss it on the relevant talk page, not here. -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback

I've been beavering away at the text of the AdminReview page, since time is marching on and the process needs to be as refined as possible before the next step.

First, I've changed "AdminReview rules" to AdminReview FAQs because it's got a nicer feel to it. I've made all of the points start with a question. The following substantive changes have been made, according to the numbered points:

• (2) Only one user can complain, not multiple users. More than one complainant meant that the admin's posts would be overwhelmed by the quantity of complainant text. Apart from that skew, limiting the amount of text is a key aim. I'm hoping that it's enough to allow the participants to mention other users who are involved, whether admins or non-admins, in their formal statements and rejoinders.
• (4) I've added the obvious: complainants can't request certain coordinators or an admin/non-admin coordinator.
• (5) Filled in the stuff about private conference between coordinators. I don't want them to be inhibited in communicating with each other, but to do this, or not, just as they see fit as individuals.
• (6) Conflict of interest: added bits about "if the parties agree".
• (9) Added a point about communicating via email by blocked users. Unless there's a better idea.
• (10) AdminReview doesn't have to take on a case.
• (11) The big one: if users are free to comment on the AdminReview talk page on cases as they run, it will blow the whole idea of restricting participants' text in the formal process; easy enough to get your friends to carry on a parallel debate overleaf, and the process will soon lose control that way. But banning outright the commenting on specific cases restricts feedback and free speech. One option is to allow commentary only after a case is closed. Or not at all. Your thoughts?

And more:

(A) Should appeals should be allowed? I'm inclined to keep it simple at this stage and say: no appeals.

(B) I've imposed a limit of 200 words on complainant's and admin's statements, and 100 words on their rejoinders. Too harsh?

(C) I've added this to Stage 2: "The timing of Stage 2 is at the coordinator's discretion. Either party may apply to the coordinator for leave to:

• make a third or subsequent posting, although this is granted only with strong reason, and to both parties if at all;
• enable a third party to post a comment, although this is granted only with strong reason, and to both parties if at all;
• extend the time normally taken for their next posting, where other real-life or other online commitments make a prompt response difficult."

Very keen to hear what people think. Tony (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, this is mine...

Re (2.) Does this not colour the activities of the admin, where there can only be the one complainant at any one time? If an admin has gone rogue, or is just adversarial, then they might give cause for complaint to several editors, yet only the one (the first) can make this. Perhaps there should be a space for other editors to endorse the behaviour as co-complainants; the co-ordinators can have a look at those accounts to see if there is a pattern as part of the process.

Re (A); not yet, since this is currently a voluntary "good faith" process and no admin need take any heed of the findings, and their response will provide their chance to give their interpretation. Should it become an established part of investigating policy violations on the part of sysops, perhaps then.

Re (B); Start small, and expand if necessary - start large and you will never be able to reduce the word count.

That's it from me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

With 2 you need to make sure that it works the same for both the complainant and the admin. You don't want multiple supporters from either side clogging up the page, see WP:ANI. A is already taken care of in that there is RfC and RFAR if this does not work. Admins as coordinators should be dropped. I think that based on comments from earlier people saw the coordinators working as a group and thus the need for an admin or two to be part of the group. However, if an editor makes a complaint they may not be too happy to find that the coordinator is an admin, which is what the process is intended to solve. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Should complaints be adjudicated by the coordinator group, rather than by one coordinator? I imagine that, considering Wikipedia's complexity, the expertise of many users may be required. I look above at the examples of: deleted contributions and autoblock procedures. Would these areas not be best evaluated by a group?

Why do I think this would be a good idea? I see that improved communication/feedback could be vastly beneficial to the project. Tony's proposal, prima facie, appears to address this area. Perhaps an advantage of this project could be as an "interface" between admins who may be unskilled explaining the technical areas of the project. Thus, in the example above: the admin coordinator would view the deleted contributions and provide feedback to the other coordinators. These coordinators then evaluate the complaint together and each render a comment.

In Stage 2: Forums Tony writes: " A determination is made that a significant breach of policy has occurred", to be decided by "the coordinator". I propose that the "coordinators" render an opinion; otherwise, accurate readings of the situation may be impossible. This would have the side benefit of preventing an editor becoming distraught to find his coordinator is, in fact, another admin.

Just an idea. What d'yall think? Lazulilasher (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that as the coordinators would all be elected it makes no difference whether they are administrators or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my point was that many pages are viewable only by those with the +sysop user right (id est: deleted pages/revisions). This could make an admin's defense difficult. Also, as an editor: I feel that a fair and unbalanced decision is easier to arrive at from multiple uninvolved editors (2 of whom are admins, 4 of whom are not); one editor may not have the technical background in things like: TOR (what is THAT?), Range IPS, sockpuppets, edits to the MediaWiki interface (see directly above), "autoblock", permissions, and so on. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm conscious that the playing field is stacked in the way that you describe, with one side having the ability to hide evidence from the other. Involved administrators also have the ability to make any such relevant material available again though, and no doubt a refusal to do so would be taken into account. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Yes, that is true. Administrators have access to the highest level of page protection and page viewing (+sysop). Reading Tony's proposal, it does not appear he intends this process to be adversarial. Rather, are the goals not reconciliation and understanding?

How is an accurate and unbalanced rendering available if the coordinators lack access (or, minimally, explanation) to restricted information? I would feel more secure in judgments rendered by an impartial board with access to the highest possible amount of information.

Perhaps I have not explained myself as well as intended. In Lazulilasher's dream Wikipedia: a process is created which is chaired jointly by administrators and regular editors. Together, this committee examines evidence in a dispute, and helps the involved parties reach a mutual understanding of the others' action. In the long run, this fosters increased cohesion and sympathy between the two groups. Again, I feel this goal would be met more readily with a jointly chaired commission (something along the lines of 2-4, which Tony proposed). If the admins and non-admins representatives agree, that sends a strong message. On the inverse: if they do not agree, this indicates an area to be worked on.

This is the last time I shall talk about my dream world, I promise ;) Lazulilasher (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It may not have been immediately obvious, but I am somewhat in agreement with you. I'm not certain that it's either feasible or plausible for each case to be handled by a single coordinator ... time will tell, I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm interested to see where this process goes. It appears like an organized version of RfC (I just read a RfC--I couldn't figure out how to comment; and I was afraid of it). It also has the potential to be damaging and divisive; I hope that it help build avenues between our (increasingly) divergent communities. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifics

With Tony's [gritted-teeth?] agreement, I'm going through the proposal. Exhibiting just the kind of impatience that would likely get me hauled up by this, I can't actually bring myself to read through the megabytes [more demerits for hyperbole] of discussion above, and ignorantly wonder:

• The coordinators are elected by popular vote for staggered terms of 12 months; any Wikipedian with at least 150 edits may participate. Surely as an elector rather than as a coordinator; but even if as an elector, I wonder how many people with under, oh, maybe 500 or so edits would be able to judge the actual (as opposed to merely declared) merits of the candidates. This seems to me to invite the sockpuppetry that's elsewhere frowned upon.
• Candidates for the coordinator positions formally acknowledge that they have the following qualities: I've tentatively changed "formally acknowledge" to "declare", but this is a minor point. As I read some of what follows, I start to wonder. Tony has cited the Stanford prison experiments as showing how power can debase; I might similarly cite some popular compilation (such as Stuart Sutherland's Irrationality) of studies of self-delusion to show that we just don't know about this kind of thing. I shall never be a candidate for coordinator, but if I wanted to be, I know that I couldn't declare that I had, say, a balanced blend of caution and self-confidence. Further, I strongly suspect that anyone who seriously declared that they had this is blind to their own potential failures and thus less than optimal. Good candidates can't knowledgably and honestly say that they have a balanced blend; they can say that they attempt to balance the two. (But then of course anyone would say that, wouldn't they? Yes, all rather catch-twenty-twoish.)
• overall Wikipedia experience of at least a few years My inner "language maven" wonders what "overall" adds; but that minor niggle aside, this would be something about which each of us can answer if only it weren't so bizarrely vague. At least three years, maybe? Two? I have no opinion on what's best here, but "formal acknowledgement" of "at least a few" seems screwy. Incidentally, while I'm generally unimpressed by edit counts -- just in the last few hours, some well-meaning fellow clocked up four edits merely in a curiously confused attempt to stick a single (and entirely unwarranted) template on my talk page -- I'd be surprised if someone with less than a thousand edits would be suitable.

Hoary (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, please go ahead and change as you will; these seem to be obvious improvements. My teeth are not gritted. I'll raise here anything !outrageous you perpetrate. I'm fine with two years and two thousand edits for candidates, and 500 edits for voters. This was on my list to revisit.

But before you get too far, perhaps you might comment on the new section below. Tony (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I thought we had agreed on two years (not "a few years") and 5000 edits minimum for candidates? And did we not also agree already that the minimum number of edits required to vote should not be greater than that required to vote in the ARBCOM election (i.e., minimum 150 mainspace edits?)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Who's got the list of WPians with more than 5000 edits, and more than 2000 edits? How few do these requirements narrow it down to. I'd be very concerned if we got too few nominations in the election. Tony (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your questions offhand but this recent Signpost article could be a good starting point for investigation: might also want to ask user:Ragesoss who wrote that article. In my opinion two years and 5000 edits are necessary because it sets the bar higher than for an RfA. We want our "judges" to be editors with gravitas who command authority and respect. A semi-newbie simply does not qualify.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits has 3,932 editors all with 7,500+. THere are a few who's names don't appear on the list by choice. I suspect if you asked on the talk page they would be able to help with the total of editors over 2,000. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you CBW (I've moved your reply for better readability, hope you don't mind). So, it's probably not a bad guess if I assume there are some 10,000 editors with more than 5,000 edits to their name. If 80% of them have been on Wikipedia for at least two years, that makes for a pool of 8,000 potential candidates for the board. Tony, that enough for you?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsure. I inserted 2000 edits into the Coordinators section, but I'm flexible. Let's hear more opinions. Tony (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hoary's diff
• my subsequent diff

Tony (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Tony. ¶ [Ahem] Could I interest you in archiving rather more of this talk page? I understand that you might want to keep visible some earlier, decisive and terminated discussions (because of their decisiveness and persuasiveness); but surely at least some of the stuff (including bickering, some of it by me) could go and collect cobwebs elsewhere. (The total length is an issue when there's an edit conflict, as happens rather often.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Partial reverse on the "cab-rank" approach

In reading the post above Hoary's, I realised that I, too, am concerned that each coordinator might have significantly different styles and skill-bases, which would give the cab-rank model a certain arbitrariness. My concerns about the joint approach are different. Here are the relative disadvantages of both approaches, as I see them.

Cab-rank approach (a case is handled from start to finish by a single coordinator)

• Introduces an element of chance if the coordinators have different styles, angles and skill-bases.
• Some coordinators may lack privileged access to certain pages.
• Some coordinators may lack specialised knowledge.
• Potential for complainant discomfort at case management by an admin.
• May prompt a lot of ad hoc communication between coordinators, especially where there are uncertainties.
• Determinations lack the authority of a group decision.

Joint judgements approach

• Significantly increases the workload of coordinators, since all will normally be involved in all cases.
• Will slow down the process, with possible backlogs.
• Cumbersome process of agreement on judgements, and the precise text of judgements.
• Numbers of participating coordinators will vary depending on the availability of individual coordinators (does this matter?)
• Coordinators would have to have allow email access and be willing to engage in significant amounts of discourse.
• There's the potential for the coordinators' modus operandi to become more political.

I must say that I'm leaning towards the partial adoption of the joint approach, as follows.

• Stage 1 is still dealt with through the cab-rank model: any individual coordinator comes along and decides whether there's a prima facie case, and deals with it in process terms. That coordinator has the option of informally consulting other coordinators if necessary during Stage 1.
• If that coordinator does move the case to Stage 2, s/he normally becomes the Guiding Coordinator, responsible for organising its conduct through Stage 2 in process terms, and for eliciting a joint judgement from all (available) coordinators. The Guiding Coordinator might write a draft judgement and put it to the others, or might gain the agreement of another coordinator to do this. The numbers agreeing/disagreeing with a judgement would be published, as for ArbCom.

I don't know whether this makes the number of six coordinators unviable, since 3–3 is possible, but two things occur to me: (i) if the numbers are tied, there's a problem, so the judgement should probably be changed to get a majority opinion; (ii) if we decided on five positions (which makes the proportions of admin/non-admin more problematic to me, at 3–2), you might often be faced with one or even two coordinators unable to participate, which would bring it back to even numbers anyway.

Now I've written it down, it seems not too bad. What do people think? Tony (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It reads to me curiously like the way that GANs are increasingly handled, with a lead coordinator responsible for the ultimate decision, but with input from the others as and when necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some complaints will no doubt be vexatious and can be dealt with speedily without any controversy, others will merit further investigation by more than one editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the GAN process; all I know is that elaborate processes need ways and means to be prompt and efficient. Assigning primary responsibility to one person seems like a good option. In Stage 2, the guiding coordinator would be responsible for the administrative conduct of the process, but the content of the decision would still be a joint one. Tony (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To limit the workload, I agree that vexatious complaints will be swiftly dealt with so as not to create a log-jam. I also agree that it can be screened by a cab-rank coordinator. Then, how about a 'buddy system' where the case is reviewed by two coordinators, at least one of who shall not be an admin? Both would have to agree on a decision. Failing agreement between the two, the others would be drawn into a 'stage 3' peer review? Stage 3 will decide and write judgement on simple majority. A 'hung' verdict will go in favour of the Admin. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it. This design brings in the full personnel for only the most difficult cases (even then, two coordinators might agree). So there's a movement from one to two to all ?six coordinators up the chain of difficulty. This brings the benefit of the group approach where needed while minimising bureacratic costs. Tony (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• We may still need to build a bit of redundancy into the system for non-availability for whatever reason, so I would suggest having perhaps more than 6 coordinators in total -maybe up to 8- while stage 3 would require participation of at least [5]. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Methinks you've nailed it. My admin-bias shows: I believe there should be both usergroups represented at at stage 2 (admin/non). This provides fair treatment and adequate research possibilities for the plaintiff and the defendent. My gut instinct: in most cases the admin/non admin will arrive at similar findings. As an aside, it may cause the admin coords to process more casework; I think this is fine, as I value the 4:2 ratio more. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• That would mean having a cab-ranked pairs of admin:non-admins too for stage 2 - not opposed to that at all. The structural majority in favour of non-admins in the larger group should come into play with trickier cases. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• In line with the concern about the admins' workload, and my comment above about redundancies, I am tending towards a 5:3 (from 4:2). Ohconfucius (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside: Can this talk page be archived? It's, um, 260Kb long ;) I can't read it on my Blackberry! Lazulilasher (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done, I've rather arbitrarily archived half of the talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hoary, Ohconfucius and I have made further changes. In particular, there's now a Stage 3: Ohconfucius's idea of two-coordinator management in Stage 2, and if all else fails, full committee-style vote in Stage 3, has been adopted. Please see what you think. Tony (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• FYI: you may follow part of the discussion which took place on Tony's talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I've contributed a few points above, and I have a few questions:

1. What is the proposed jurisdiction? The text highlights blocking: "one [tool in] particular causes personal angst and controversy every day: the ability to 'block'" The DR process concerns that other controversial admin too: deletion. I can see page protection as a possibly controversial admin action. With this in mind, is AdminReview the most appropriate name? It does not appear that AR shall review the admin himself, or the admin's overall character and body of work; rather, his use of the tools in one case will be reviewed. Perhaps Administrative Action Review is more precise (or even Block Review)? I know this is splitting hairs; but, there is a difference. I believe the current Dispute Resolution may suffer from a lack of suitably tailored goals and jurisdictions.

   • Admin-on-Admin (alternatively: the world's worst porno): yes, it happens. Are these disputes under AR's jurisdiction?
   • Uncivil (unnecesary?) non-administrative actions carried out by admins (phew!): Admins write content, fight vandals, and engage in article/project discussions. Sometimes they are uncivil without using their admin tools. Will this project concern itself only with the use of admin tools?

2. Oversight/CHU/etc: Few editors carry these permissions. Some controversial administrative actions involve alleged breach of policies which relate to these permissions. If no coordinator has access, what would AR do? Or, would someone able to use these tools volunteer to work with AR?
3. Standing: Does a plaintiff require standing to file a dispute? That is: one observes, but does not experience a breach of admin policy. Is Third Party Standing permitted?
4. Statute of limitations: Can a grievance be filed for administrative actions which occurred x days/months/years ago? Forgive me if this is addressed; I cannot find it.
5. Idea: should admin coordinators be prohibited from refusing a case at stage 1? This guarantees that at least one non-admin reviews each case. As it stands: the system is vulnerable to criticism that an admin abuses gatekeeping power.
6. The Lead: it's long and much of it justifies the project's existence. Could the justification/explanation portions be moved elsewhere? This would allow a concise, brief lead. Something like: this page concerns breaches of admin policy....brief explanation. Then dive into the process. As it stands, the lead mixes a WP:ESSAY with a proposal.

• I hope that I am clearly explaining my thoughts. Here is what I mean: "AdminReview aims to address the perceived lack of effective process for reviewing admins' actions and applying disciplinary remedies where the actions were unreasonable and/or in breach of policy, particularly as a block on a user remains permanently on their record even if the block is found to have been unjustified." Could this be: "AdminReview reviews administrative actions that may have breached administrative policies (wikilink)"? We could move the justifications and explanations for the proposal elsewhere; they appear to be the beginning of a discussion.

Ok, I hope this helps a bit. Kindly Lazulilasher (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll share my thoughts on a couple of the points you raise. While Administrative Action Review may be a more precise name, I find it unnecessarily cumbersome. I don't imagine there will be any misunderstandings about what a process named AdminReview exists to do. On that note, I can't see any reason why this process would concern itself with non-administrative actions. As an admin yourself, you know that when we're not performing administrative actions (i.e. when we're writing articles or discussing policy), we're just normal editors like everyone else, and our opinions don't carry any extra weight. (Some might not see it that way, but that's the way it is.) I don't recall seeing any statute of limitations given, but I think it's a good (perhaps necessary) idea; I'd suggest two weeks. While I don't like your suggestion that only non-admins refuse to hear cases, it's actually a good idea. faithless (^speak) 23:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One point at a time;

1.admin-on-admin should be allowed.

2. Those tools are not handed out to all admins and probably are outside of this proposal.

3. Anybody should be able to file a legitimate claim. A new user, blocked or not, may not be aware of the proposal or how to properly file a complaint.

4. They should be filed within a reasonable amount of time but there needs to be some grace period in case the editor in question is away for an extended period. Two weeks?

5. Admins should be permitted to remove obvious cases of frivolous claims. If someone creates How to kill a barbie doll (I deleted it) and wants to complain, then it requires an admin to see what was in it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My feelings (per Lazulilasher's numbering):

1/ Maybe I don't understand the availability of tools, but I take the view that this is a grievance procedures for non-admins. Admins can take care of themselves, so admin on admin actions could take place at WP:ANI. If an admin is in serious breach of WP:CIVIL against a non-admin, it would be covered because it is the standard which WP:ADMIN requires. Because of admins' possession of certain tools, non-admins may fear retaliation if they complain about admin incivility.

3/ Standing: I believe it is not intended to allow third party complaints, although I believe proxy claims (with permission and with good reason) should be allowed, I think it is probably better that only those directly on the receiving end may file a complaint. I fear that allowing third party claims would open the floodgates to frivolous or vindictive actions.

4/ I was leaning towards 4 weeks, thinking that two weeks may be a bit short for a user to react (assuming xhe already knows about the existence of the process). However, I am concerned that going to 4 weeks may cause a lot of work to trace back edit histories in the busier pages. Also, archiving tends to mess things up for finding diffs. I'm OK with 2 weeks.

5/ Either we should abandon stage 1, and go directly to a buddy review, or we define that the case leader should be a non-admin? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Lazulilasher (and to Cambridge, Ohconfucius and Faithless).

Lazulilasher has raised insightful points: thank you indeed. This is the kind of criticism that can lead to significant improvements in the process.

• Item 1
  • Admin-on-admin: AdminReview is primarily a grievance procedure for non-admins, but because it is unique in its structure and objectives, I believe it should be available to all WPians, right up to Jimbo. Are there any dangeres in allowing an admin to complain about perceived breaches of policy by another admin?
  • Jurisdiction: it concerns all policy that governs admin actions/behaviour, including blocking and deletion policies. I'm about to add a little detail from the blocking policy to the codified policy requirements on the AdminReview page. I'll look at adding policy concerning deletion if it's appropriate. However, you raise a very important point: some of the behavioural requirements expressed at WP:ADMIN are framed in the manner of admins' setting an example to all WPians. The codification of these requirements on the AdminReview page starkly lays them out for scrutiny, and it is only now that Lazulilasher has raised the issue that I, for one, realise that a complaint could be made against an admin purely on the basis of their behaviour as general users, not in any particular administrative context. This needs to be precluded, since ANI et al. exist for dealing with the general behaviour of WPians. I think the best remedy is to specify somewhere globally that a complaint must concern the use of an admin tool or privilege (or a threat to use it). Does anyone disagree with this proposal?
  • Name change: I agree that "Administrative Action Review" is clunky. "AdminReview" doesn't appear to convey misinformation or an undesirable angle.

• Item 2
  • I propose that it be mentioned in AdminReview FAQs that where information accessible only by WPians with Checkuser/CHU rights appears to be important in a case, the Managing Coordinator may seek the opinion or assistance of a user who has such access. Will this cover the issue? I can't see any other way out of it, and there's always the option for the user with privileged access to say "Sorry, can't help—it's too sensitive", in which case we do our best or close the case without judgement.

• Item 3
  • Third-parties: There's already the option of applying to the coordinator(s) to have a third party post a statement, although this will usually be discouraged. That is the way of ANI and RfC, and serves a quite different purpose. It is in everyone's interest that this process be lean, efficient and prompt, without a blow-out in text. The more judicial approach at AdminReview demands greater discipline in terms of admissibility. There is also the option of mentioning other parties in the complainant's/admin's statements and rejoinders, although these should focus on facts and policies.However, what if another party comes along after someone has started a complaint, wanting to make the same or a similar complaint against admin action in relation to the same incident? It would be clumsy to have multiple complaints going on simultaneously. Hmmmm ... I'm starting to think that complainant and admin should be able to officially name other parties in an incident, but that those parties should not be able to add statements/rejoinders unless the coordinator(s) agree(s). It's first-come, first-served as far as being the complainant who puts their case. This needs a little thought.

• Item 4
  • Ohconfucius, I believe that most complaints will be made very promptly—within a day or two. Do you agree with my change (see FAQ), which is that a complaint should normally be made within a seven days, but a complainant can apply for an extension with good reason? I agree with Cambridge.

• Item 5
  • Cambridge: there's always the option for the initial coordinator to go ask one of the admin coordinators to access admin-restricted information and provide an opinion privately. Ohconfucius: your suggestions bear thinking about, but I must say that your three options are not immediately attractive to me. Unsure.

THe point of two weeks is that not all editors are logging in every day. I've had editors ask me about things 12 - 14 days after I've done them. We don't want to exclude them. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, going back to two weeks, but sooner if possible and longer where justifiable. Tony (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Item 6
  • The long lead: I agree with Lazulilasher. Let me have a go at it over the next couple of days. Tony (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tony from Ohconfucius

Item 1

• Admin-on-admin: No strong objections. I do not think there are any dangers, except for potentially clogging up the system when Admins have their own powers to solve problems not available to ordinary users.
• Jurisdiction: I agree that a complaint must concern the use of an admin tool or privilege - most admins go around doing ce or other work do so without anyone necessarily knowing any better they are admins. My concern was specifically the threat to use those powers like 'shut up or I'll block you'.
• Name change: "AdminReview" is OK unless we can come up with a better one before launch.

Item 2 Checkuser/CHU rights AR needs those tools to further an investigation, and coordinators need to avail themselves of it from time to time.

Item 3 Third-parties: "It would be clumsy to have multiple complaints going on simultaneously. Hmmmm ... I'm starting to think that complainant and admin should be able to officially name other parties in an incident". That's where I was headed with my 'proxy claims' suggestion. The same incident should only be 'tried' once; the person who files may do so on their own account and on behalf of A.N.Other for an incident which "directly affects them". The parties should be identified when the filing is made, with no subsequent additions allowed. We should rule out class actions, but the question then is do we limit the number of parties who can be joined, and would every such party be allowed to make a statement?

Not entirely related point (but in response to Tony) Also of course, with the buddy system, the ability to handle more caseload (dealing with several simultaneous claims) is there.

Item 4 I'm fine with it so long as the process has the option of taking on cases which are files outside the strict technical imposition of a short deadline.

Item 5 My concern is that justice be seen to be done, to ensure that accusations of Admin bias do not fly if a case falls at the first hurdle.

Item 6 The long lead: I am considering ejecting it all into a preamble or introduction which we can then edit down, so we can start writing a proper lead. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed the essay-like stuff out of the lead and reorganised the structure. Please let me know what you think. Tony (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break to reply to Tony, Ohconfucius, et al

Wow. I had no idea my questions would garner such a great response.

Here are my responses.

• Item 1
  • Admin-Admin I wanted to bring it up because I saw the need for clarification. Also, admin-admin abuse is, unfortunately, an occurrence. It generally kicks up a lot of dust. I tend to agree with Tony: we have a new and unique judicial proposal. Perhaps this proposal will be more orderly than RfC and less dramatic than ArbCom. As such, I believe the process—as currently proposed—provides a so-called "third way"; a place to bring feuding parties together under the moderation of a diverse cross-section of Wikipedians (writers, vandal fighters, policy wonks, admins, and non admins; rather than all admins).
  • Jurisdiction I agree with Tony; as an admin: the most of my edits are to relatively uncontroversial articles with which I have an hedonistic intellectual curiosity. If, however, I threaten to block a collaborator with whom I disagree, then I should be held at fault.
    • I might justify this along the same lines of Common assault: the crime is committed when admin A causes apprehension for user B (through the threat of force). Of course, our finding must be that the this was intentional; and, that the threatened action was outside of the requisite policies.
    • Name change There does not appear to be consensus for my proposal. No worries.
• Item 2 Right, I do not think there is a way beyond this. These cases may just be rejected. In the long run, if the community supports another avenue that may be explored later.
• Item 3 This one might be tough, and I might be in disagreement with the others. First, I think a plaintiff should be requried to demonstrate standing; id est: sufficient injury. Western Judicial systems generally follow this precept. My fear is that we might inadvertently inspire a class of editors who scour admin actions for possible misdeeds; the project has done this in other areas (i.e. a dedicated class of vandal fighters).
  • Class action You mention class action: I prefer we allow those able to demonstrate sufficient injury. Thus, if an article is protected and Users X,Y,Z were able to demonstrate injury: all three editors should be able to file suit jointly (that is: file one suit).
    • This has the added benefit of disallowing multiple cases which regard the same action.
  • On the inverse: I fear the "Arbcom effect". Although, at times, an amicus curae is helpful; I feel the overall effect, as occurs in Wikipedia, damages the reconciliation process. In other words: let's keep the proceedings limited to the admin(s), the plaintiff(s), and the coordinators. We have one leg up on the real world here in WP: we've got diffs. Therefore, there is no need for third-parties or witness. I feel that this is one of the failings of our current dispute resolution system. In simple terms: the fewer statements, the better.
• Item 4 I think 7 days is sufficient. Perhaps 14 days, but I prefer seven: let's get it over with.
• Item 5 I believe this is a good idea; an admin coordinator should be willing to provide the required information (if need be). If the actual edits cannot be shown, then the admin could, in good faith, provide a description.
• Item 6 Yep, you've nailed it, now. I only did a precursory read over, but it was much improved. I imagine the justification section was there before this proposal gained so much acceptance. I'll look closer and try and pick out loopholes after I've been removed from the process for a day or so.

Ok, there was one more small issue I wanted to bring up regarding scope. I do not, however, remember what the point was I wanted to make. So....let me know what everyone thinks. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Item 1 Sorry, but admin-admin disputes simply lack the immediacy and imbalance of relationship that this process is intended to address, at least for the present. I've yet to see an admin block another admin indefinitely and lock their talkpage for trivial/nonexistent/content-dispute reasons, but I've seen plenty of users hit by that behavior. I agree with you that threats of abuse are just as bad as abuse itself. As far as the name, *shrug*. I thought AdminWatch was better than AdminReview.
• Item 2 Unfortunately, we've got to find a way to deal with this. "Checkuser" is an abused tool of its own magnitude, with zero current checks or balances, and is often used to block accounts as "sockpuppets" that clearly lack a history of abuse on their own. I realize the admin community has a widespread paranoia of sleeper accounts (or heck, just paranoia in general) but think for a second, how would you like the be the one on the receiving end of a false-positive "checkuser found a sockpuppet" block? Especially since anything you can say, once a CU has weighed in, is given absolutely zero credence?
• Item 3 "Class Actions" could be handled by taking in 2-3 primary users, then recommending that the process be converted into a general RFC with all aggrieved members signing off as parties to the dispute and the coordinators certifying, in the RFC filing, that the dispute is genuine and has exceeded the scope of this process. The only problem here is that some/all of the "class" might be blocked users, which would have to be worked around in some fashion.

Secondary point re: "extra complainants", it should be fairly easy to set up a "Request to enter dispute as a fellow aggrieved party" section of the filing template wherein users post the request to join and are required to wait until the coordinator agrees to accept them as a secondary filing party, before being allowed to add their statement.

• Item 4 I think 2 weeks is better than one. I also think that users should be free to add a dispute for up to 14 days after the end of the admin action in question (so that the timer starts at the end of a user's block, not the beginning). It's no help to users who get indef-blocked, but some users may be wary of emailing in and simply want to "wait out" a block before filing.
• Item 5 A unilateral act by any admin at any stage of this process will only hurt the perceived trustworthiness of the process.
• Item 6 I was considering that perhaps there should be a "statement of principles", or something to that effect, for the AdminReview process. An example could be: "WP:Editwar is seen to generally trump WP:3RR, which is usually employed unevenly despite the clause "Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page." We would prefer to see article pages locked (forcing discussion on the talkpage) rather than 3RR-based blocks implemented, especially in cases where both sides are clearly engaged in an edit war."

Those are my thoughts. WW,QuisCustodio 05:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Quis

• 1. Nevertheless, I see no reason that admin actions/behaviour towards other admins should be excluded from this process.
• 3. The option of transferring to RfC sounds like blow-out to me. Unsure of the solution yet. Your suggestion for an additional form "Request to enter complaint process as a complainant" is worth considering, but I fear the potential for (i) messiness if the original complainant doesn't want this, or disagrees with the new complainant in some respect, and (ii) overbalancing the rights of the admin, by allowing two or more complainants to write statements and rejoinders, against the admin's single statement and rejoinder.
• 5. Please see my comment at the bottom.
• 6. I think a statement of principles is unnecessary: are the "Aims" insufficient? Tony (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Brief Responses to Quis Salut Quis:

• Item 2: I personally do not know much about Checkuser/oversight or the policies therein. I feel, however, that these permissions may be outside of AdminReview's purview; these tools are given to only a few (20?) members of the community, and are thus not within the range of the typical admin toolset. There is also an alternate proposal: Wikipedia:Review Board which aims to examine the use of such tools. To reiterate: I feel there should be a policy in place to oversee the use of such permissions; but, it is likely beyond our scope.
• Item 3: Blocked users are a concern. There was an email option discussed earlier; perhaps blocked users could email the mamanging coordinator who could file a proxy claim? Overall, I would discourage the use of proxy claims, except in such cases. Regarding RfC: I would discourage its use as much as possible. I have a very simple reason: RfCs are confusing and have a tendency to get out of control. I like the AdminReview proposal because it narrowly tailors a scope and limits participatns; hopefully, this will encourage concise cases with clear outcomes.
  • I still believe that users should demonstrate sufficient standing in a dispute. If 5 users where somehow negatively affected by one action, their complaint should be handled as one case. I imagine that the coordinators will have the prudence to weigh and examine all evidence.

Yours, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

For those that don't read that page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180#Can regular editors decline blocks? may be of interest. Rather than discuss it her I would suggest that Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Competence to decline requests is the correct place. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The thread is titled wrong, should have been labeled "Can regular editors decline un-block requests?" (not your fault CBW.) This reminds me of a recent thread started by user:Newyorkbrad on a noticeboard, where he noted an unblock request sitting around unanswered for more than 24 hours. His very reasonable observation, that this amounted to a denial of due process – I believe he said something along the lines of, "It defeats the motto of Wikipedia if it is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit – except you" – was met with uncomprehending responses from his fellow admins. A number said, in effect, "Yeah I saw that but so what. The unblock request was unconvincing/too long/came with a messy history," or "It wasn't clear to me that the block was wrong." None thought to consider that according to the principle of in dubio pro reo (Latin for "give the defendant the benefit of the doubt") they could, and perhaps should, have lifted the block unless the blocking admin had made an uncontrovertible case for it. Because no one bothered to get involved, the editor was left hanging for too long.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Accounts per month with at least 20 article edits, January 2001 – September 2008

And then we risk losing another editor. Has anyone seen this graph, currently displayed in The Signpost? Tony (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as regards the image you posted and your own comment, I can point myself out as another editor "highly at risk."

Regardless, as much distrust as I have of administrators (as far as "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, petty power corrupts way out of proportion" goes), the last thing I want to see is unqualified individuals (e.g. people who can't grant an unblock) closing/declining unblock requests. The second-last thing I want to see, I already see every day: obviously unqualified administrators who "cut their teeth" or otherwise monopolize monitoring Unblock requests, who do no research before slapping users with multiple "decline" notices that are utterly unhelpful in getting a successful unblock and do nothing to help users calm down, work out their issues, and return later as successful contributors.

GMW mentions a user sitting for over 24 hours; I saw one recently (User:Roz_Lipschitz, talk) who was jerked around for what appears to be a severely long time. A decline reason, one of many, stated "Please wait until a checkuser comments." For over a month, no CU would deign to comment. The WP:BLOCK policy states In general, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. Rather than being helpful, this ensures that (a) no block is ever granted in a timely manner (meanwhile, declines happen near-instantaneously) and (b) abused users are forced to watch others talk about them while being completely unable to respond.

This is one of the biggest problems with wikipedia. The moment a "decline" is placed on an unblock request, it vanishes from the Category:Requests for unblock page. Yes, the unblock template says "This request continues to be visible", but visible where? Only on the user's talkpage, where nobody has reason to go. The quicker a request is declined (especially when with pointless and unhelpful reasons), the quicker the user will pop up another merely so someone will see it. And of course, this garbage is not just worthless, it's worded to deliberately enflame already hot emotions because it's worded precisely the wrong way and basically boils down to "the only way to get unblocked is to kiss ass."

Case in point (or one case I'd like to see AdminReview handle) is the ongoing behavior of Swatjester, most recently his block of Prophaniti, who he was already engaging in several content disputes with, and who displayed some pretty wp:dickish behavior by making edits like this one and this, last bit. This is currently "on hold" waiting for comment by Swatjester, rather than being properly granted, and time being wasted because of it. Doubly absurd when right above it, Swatjester left a "mostly out of touch for a week" note starting January 6th, and then extended ("tweaked") the block to coincide with his out-of-town time, clearly trying to use his admin tools to keep the "upper hand" by not allowing Prophaniti to edit during the time he personally wouldn't be around to engage in the content dispute further.

I see this as one thing AdminReview will absolutely need to get to the forefront of: cleaning up the ridiculously broken and tilted cycle of "block, incite, extend, delay" currently practiced far too often and codified into policy by admins who are perhaps well-meaning, but utterly incompetent (at least in dealing with people in situations where emotions are already running hot) in communication skills. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to butt in on this obviously very complimentary discussion, but please link to categories like this: [[:Category:Foo]]. Without the colon, it doesn't really work. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, edit made. Please say what's on your mind if you have something on the topic in general, or on the cases in specific. WW,QuisCustodio 20:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This sock of User:WhoWatches actually makes a fair point here. I wonder if the "decline unblock" template could have an optional parameter, perhaps one for declining obvious vandals making spurious unblock requests (which would be handled as now), and a different one for more controversial ones, which could perhaps be placed into a category something like Category: Declined unblock requests requesting confirmation which would also be visible in CAT:RFU? If the second unblock was also declined, then the request would disappear from the category. Certainly I think it would make admins more inclined to deal with "tricky" unblock requests knowing that a second pair of eyes would be required to confirm their decision. Black Kite 20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you skip the whole "I'm going to make a personal attack against a user I myself abused" route and stick to the arguments, Black. I'm interested in improving this project and nothing more.

And no, I don't think your suggestion would work that well. Since the problem now is unqualified people trolling Unblock requests and leaving bad Declines just to clear them off the Category page, even leaving the declination request at "ask for confirm by default" wouldn't work, as the unqualified ones would simply start marking every unblock request "spurious" whether it really was or not, and as you mentioned there would be no review for requests marked "declined, spurious."

Mechanically this is no different than the current "get feedback" spiked fence and the idea of users having to file a second unblock request (which promptly gets called "spurious" once more). The underlying problem, that of unqualified people making bad judgements with no oversight, isn't addressed. WW,QuisCustodio 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, arguing by assertion ("unqualified people trolling Unblock requests") isn't exactly helping you get across to people any valid points you may have . Black Kite 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been noted by other users on this page: there are plenty of "new admins" and old alike who "cut their teeth", some as a method of earning brownie points when new and some merely because this is how they behave, of being extra-incivil to people when filing unblock requests and then coming to WP:ANI for applause. This is what I mean by "unqualified people" - those who lack the temperament and patience to honestly investigate a request, and instead behave in a manner harmful to the encyclopedia and which drives off editors.

And I am still waiting for you to address my basic point: that the problem is people themselves, and since the problem is people, sticking another layer of bureaucracy into the unblock process is unhelpful. WW,QuisCustodio 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Quis. The temperature has gone down in your posts, but I agree with Black Kite that it has a little way to go. Try being more bland!? Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The temperature of his/her posts, as of now, and in my humble opinion, is just right, in any case not objectionable to me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, given that Mr. Black apparently intends to waste my time making personal attacks against me rather than answering the points I ask about, I'm about to give up discussing anything with him entirely. His behavior has convinced me he needs to be recalled and would serve wikipedia far better as a simple editor on the NFC front, rather than armed with the admin bit. WW,QuisCustodio 16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with your take on Black Kite. Please assume good faith and read the sign at the top about negative posts. I will have to start removing those among your posts that I perceive to be unconstructive. I thought we were getting somewhere. Tony (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are free to disagree on my take on Mr. Black, but I would hope you would treat all equally rather than implicitly insisting that he has some right to make personal attacks against me. WW,QuisCustodio 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"[ ]"

Hi guys just been reading the discussion over the past couple of weeks, interesting stuff. Just so you know Tony, there's a pair of these "[ ]" (whatever these are called) around the entry for the middle coordinator, didn't know if they were supposed to be there or not. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing it, Ryan. I put it there as a proposal before we had finalised the number of coordinators. The square brackets, or the entire line will be removed as the details become more concrete. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, I'm glad I posted here instead trying to "help" and remove it lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A few things

So I'm getting a sense above that the Stage 1 gateway should be dealt with by one of the non-admin Coordinators. I've framed the Coordinator who performs this initial filtering as the "Managing Coordinator" throughout the process (just seemed simple and practical); this means that the admin Coordinators are not permitted to be Managing Coordinators. It's not in principle a problem to me. I agree that this might be a quid pro quo for the "tied vote goes in favour of the admin" feature in Stage 3, if we want to play tit-for-tat. Tit-for-tat is very much part of achieving fairness in the working decisions of real-life judicial officers, in a dynamic sense (rather than the static, structural sense here): "I'll let this evidence in late, and I'll take the opportunity, if one arises down the track, to allow a request by the other side's attorney that I might otherwise not have allowed"—you know the phenomenon I'm referring to. Tony (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony you wouldn't have been watching too many episodes of Law & Order would you? ;-)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I agree. I have another alternative: disallowing admins to vote as coordinators; hence, they play only an advisory role. The admin coordinators could still advise and provide information regarding cases (i.e. deleted edits, technical know-how, etc). This seems appealing to me: but, I fear community resistance to the idea. Benefits include: creating an outside, transparent process; from conversations here, I do not see the "mob" mentality that I had originally feared. Any thoughts on this? Am I way off base? Lazulilasher (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I hasten to add: this would not silence the admin voice. Rather, the admin coordinator would still be able to provide all requisite information/policies/diffs; a very useful function. I trust any non-admin coordinator would carefully consider all sides of the dispute and both admin/non-admin would work towards a mutually acceptable reconciliation. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Second, I suppose you've all noticed that I added to the top of the talk page a "don't comment on live cases" warning. I can't think of any other way to safeguard the process in this respect. Tony (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I support what you said about the managing coordinator, although I can imagine someone will suggest a name change. LOL I don't know the phenomenon you are referring to but don't worry ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know someone thought the floating box was a good idea on "don't talk about live cases", but it's getting in the way of reading comments by covering up the end of lines. Also, what is a "live case"? Are we referring to an AdminReview case or just anything "current" in general? WW,QuisCustodio 15:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Ohconfucius for implementing the sign (something very visible will be required). Yes, it could be positioned lower so that it doesn't cover the bottom few lines of the page in the right-side corner. I guess it could say "... current AdminReview cases ...", if it's unclear (what others would it be referring to)? I used "live cases" over in the FAQ section, but if that's loose language, I'm quite willing to change it. Tony (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea thirded, on my comp it covers the last line of text, sorry. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When I read "live cases" I thought this referred to disputes currently at one of the noticeboards (or about to erupt there), not the future AdminReview cases. I too think that the floating banner put in by Ohconfucius is distracting. I tried to put the relevant words in the "caution box" at the top in red, using the HTML "font color" code, but did not succeed.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That sign is awesome! Didn't know that could even be done! Ever considered renting it out to advertisers? ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesing sign. I see first of all that it vanishes when I go to edit the page. Second it says "Commentary on live cases is not permitted on this page". That links to User:Tony1/AdminReview so is that the correct place to comment on a live case? Of course not, but I would suggest that the sign be changed to "Commentary on live cases is not permitted" to clear up any possible confusion. Oh and I just noticed the "nutshell" statement is "This is a process for dealing with users' grievances against administrator (admin) behaviour." which micght read better as "This is a process for dealing with users' grievances against administrator (admin) actions." That way it matches with the first line of the aims. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooh he's got a good point there, specifically where the template links. Consider adding; "to file a grievance, please click here" or something to that effect. As the project's not live yet, you might want to add an extra; (project not active yet). Ryan4314 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, I presume you're referring to the banner and not the nutshell statement. Is this resolved now that the banner has been removed pending consideration of its final wording and formatting? Tony (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup I meant the banner, and yup it's resolved ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for the confusion, folks. I put the banner up late last night as a demonstration of what could be done (I saw it somewhere and copied the code). Currently, the message is loud, brazen, and linked to AdminReview. These can all be changed: size, shape, colour, words used, where it points to, what the mouseover message reads, etc. I just copied waht I felt to be the most important message and plopped it into a png file. We can finalise the look and the message when suitable parameters have been agreed upon. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other about the floating banner - I just want to say that it needs to be scaled down, and soon. I don't know about other people, but I couldn't even read the end of Ohconfucius's above post. faithless (^speak) 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Responses.

1. Any advance on the term "Managing Coordinator"? I guess it says what it is—the Coordinator who, by default, shepherds the case through the stages, and who shoulders the responsibility for seeing that the procedures are observed, including communication with the parties. The organiser in me is chary of processes where ultimate responsibility for doing the nitty-gritty tasks lies with more than one person. Of course, nothing in principle precludes the performance of some or all of these tasks by another Coordinator, but the Managing Coordinator is responsible. I envisage that all ?five of the non-admin Coordinators will share the taking on of cases in Stage 1 as the sole (and "Managing") Coordinator, a role they would normally retain throughout the case. I didn't envisage that the Managing Coordinator's opinion or (in Stage 3) vote would be privileged over that of fellow Coordinators. Do you prefer "Case Manager"? It's less clunky, isn't it, but doesn't clearly announce that the Case Manager is one of the Coordinators.
2. How is this new opening of the nutshell statement, in which I've taken the liberty of trying to clear up a number of issues: "This is a process for dealing with users' grievances against (i) the use of administrator privileges in a way the user believes has breached policy and been unfair to them, or (ii) the threat to use those privileges in a way the user believes would have breached policy and been unfair to them." This is an attempt to address Lazulilasher's point about requiring complainants to prove their "standing" (as having suffered unfairness), my concern that the threat to use powers unfairly should be covered, and the point by Cambridge about the use of "behaviour" alone, without "actions". What do you all think?
3. Related issue: the "General policy requirements". These are not explicitly grounds for making a complaint, so I wonder why I've retained them ... perhaps people might comment. I guess I had in mind that they might be mentioned in passing by a complainant, or in a judgement, in support of a stance. Would it damage the process to remove them? Tony (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Admin Coordinators can't vote? I must say that I think this is skewing it too far. The ratio of five to two (or whatever we finally decide) is already a safeguard against the domination of admins, as is the fact that of the two "buddy" Coordinators in Stage 2, at least one must be a non-admin (i.e., at least the Managing Coordinator), and that a majority of "available" Coordinatos in Stage 3 must be non-admins. I want to engage the admin Coordinators just as much as the non-admins, and stripping them of voting rights is to ask them to be second-class workers, isn't it? Being a Coordinator will require commitment and hard work; voting is part of that, and will bring them into full engagement with their peers. Besides, the process needs to gain the trust of admins at large, too. Tony (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) Case coordinator, case manager, either one is fine.
(2) "…or (ii) the threat to use those privileges in such a way."
(3) Dunno.
(4) My recommendation, which got shot down early, was that no sitting admins could serve, but that former admins – including and especially admins who pledge to surrender their admin bit if elected and until their term as coordinator ends - would be most welcome. I am still not comfortable with the idea of letting sitting admins serve. However, the need for admin powers to perform some of the essential technical tasks probably precludes this. Again, this is not a personal thing – I don't experience paranoia about "1600 corrupt admins" – but an impersonal principle called separation of powers. In part, however, my concern has been taken care of by the move from "one coordinator only in charge of a case from start to finish" to a mix of collective and individual responsibility.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I'd rather have "Case Coordinator", manager could imply authority etc etc blah blah

2. Very good, very diplomatic. Although there are 2 "This"s' in close proximity at the start. Consider changing "This page in a nutshell: This is a process" to "In a nutshell: This is a process". Although you are the king of prose so I'll leave that fully up to you ;)

3. I like em, plus there's the small chance someone who was fairly blocked might read and change their mind about starting a case. Crazy I know, but there simply has to be some level headed people around here ;)

4. I agree with you Tony, to get this process off the ground we will have to make some diplomatic concessions etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Beware game-playing

Just an observation I've had today, which is the realization that it almost requires 2 hands to count the number of actual, relatively meaningful (I say "relatively" because there's still plenty of pro-admin bias and wannabe-admin "support") unblock request discussions on WP:ANI in the past couple days. Previously I couldn't have counted same on two hands if I watched for a month straight. Two of these have actually involved a successful unblock, though both involved the blocking admin making a statement saying roughly that since the block had forced the user to admit they were "wrong" in a content dispute, unblock would no longer be "opposed" and there were some pretty shady comments otherwise throughout the discussions.

If this continues, that's fine, but I worry that some might use this (seemingly temporary) change to argue that a need for AdminReview no longer exists. I disagree; I think that this probably happened because AdminReview hasn't gone away, failed their bad-faith MFD, and has an outside shot at actually holding some of them accountable for their actions.

In short: AdminReview, and major change to Wikipedia, is still needed no matter how much WP:ANI and other pages temporarily "change"; absent something holding them in place, they will simply revert back to old patterns. WW,QuisCustodio 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Two quibbles

The first one is this:

Provide the number(s) and letter(s) of the specific policy requirements that in your view were breached by the admin, together with a brief justification and diff for each.

Okay but this is not an easy task. Matching your particular situation to one or more out of some two dozen policy requirements would be difficult enough for a dispassionate observer with plenty of time, all the more so for someone still flushed and excited and angry about their perceived mistreatment. Can we change this so as to lower this particular hurdle for complainants:
Either change the command ("provide") to a suggestion ("As best you can" or "If possible" or "Try to"), so that editors understand that we won't throw out their complaints if they haven't gotten it all neat and tidy; or
As an adjunct (or instead of) to the policy requirements, use them to produce verbiage that expresses in colorful terms what impact various wrongful admin actions have, for example Electric fence, Taser it until it stops moving, and Scarlet letter.
The second is where it says that coordinators may confer privately among themselves about an individual case and that these deliberations will remain confidential. After the recent ARBCOM election, Jimbo Wales said that the community had given a mandate for change, but especially more transparency. This seems to run counter to that trend. Could it be changed to something that says deliberations will be on a public, read-only page, except in special circumstances where required for reasons of privacy?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Responses.

The need for a complainant to identify which policy requirement has been breached, in their opinion. I can't see how we can get around this. Heck, it's so much easier than before: the Admin policy requirements have never before been codified and organised according the theme, as has been done on the AdminReview page. This is a major advance for those who might have found it hard to pin down whether they have been mistreated according to policy.

If a newbie wants to ask someone else for procedural help, sure, but to allow complaints on a vague basis ("I've been mistreated") is going to end up flooding us with trivia, don't you think; it's also potentially unfair to admins. Pinning down possible breaches of admin policy is what characterises this process, as well as its strict evidentiary rules (attention to relevance, restrictions in the length of statements and who can make them). This is all about fairness and focus, something I think ANI and other forums risk not doing well (some would say in pursuit of other goals, which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with; our goals here are narrower). Finally, improving WPians' awareness of admin policy requirements is one of the keys to improving relations between non-admins and admins, I think.

Private communications. Well, I'm not surprised someone has brought this up. It's been weighing on my mind ever since I read Jimbo's strongly worded statement. I was tempted to ask him myself, and I'm sure he'd have echoed exactly your concerns. I think you're right, that deliberations between coordinators should, by and large, be on the record. Is it technically difficult to create a discussion page for coordinators' deliberations (Stages 2 and 3) that can't be edited by others? Tony (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

While Jimbo strongly commented, he didn't request complete transparency in ArbCom; he decried a perceived tendency toward more secretiveness, and said he supported more transparency. I should think the requirements of openness would be satisfied by the co-ordinators providing, with their conclusions, the basis on how they arrived at it. I don't think that having the deliberations publicly viewable in real time will help, since it gives a potential of having certain lines of consideration being supported/refuted by interested parties with the possibility of there being campaigns conducted to get the "right" result. If the basis of a decision is provided with the conclusion, then any questions on the considerations may be voiced at that time. Thus you still have the transparency, but without the detrimental effects of attempting to sway the process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear you say this. Tony (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are to be "private" communications, that doesn't help make this an open process. The no-longer-trusted-by-anybody arbcom has "statements of principles" for every decision before they announce who they've decided to destroy, but by the same token, those "principles" almost always conflict with one wikipedian policy or another, and are almost universally either misapplied or unevenly applied. Half the time, the "principles" announced don't even apply to the decision, as if they were just slapped on to justify the result of back-room dealings. The more this process looks like Arbcom, the less real editors are going to trust it.

I agree with the reasoning earlier on this page that we don't want to have outside editors chiming in, but by the same token, I disagree with the idea that this should resemble a trial where each side has 3 minutes to talk, then has to sit back while the coordinators go into the back room to deliberate. I think that the process of how the coordinators are reaching each decision should be available in real-time, both for maximum trust of the process and for the ability of involved parties (not third-party contributors) to be able to speak up and say "hey, wait a minute, you forgot about X." WW,QuisCustodio 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the notion of a "protected – i.e., read-only for all but coordinators – deliberation page" is still very much in play. In my opinion, "everything out in the open - no confidential deliberations" should be the default position. I do understand LessHeard vanU's concerns and do not deny their validity. However, if push comes to shove then I know where my preferences lie.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Recommended background reading

User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general (very long so reserve a chunk of time for reading.) While I don't agree with everything in that essay, the future coordinators would do well to study the critiques expressed by a major content contributor. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Two comments

I haven't looked into this in detail, or the background, but I wanted to make two important notes.

1. Any sort of Admin little-o-oversight is going to have to devolve from ArbCom. If we were rebuilding Wikipedia governance from the ground up, maybe not, but this isn't going to work without at the very least a rubber stamp from ArbCom. Further remember that ArbCom is the place where all information ends up (eventually) and some doesn't come back out of. When people have concerns the en point of most advice will end with "e-mail Arbcom."

2. We have bigger problems right now - not the least of which is the review board/audit panel proposal and the new CU/OS issues. A errant admins are a major problem - each one causes a ripple effect of demoralization - but the problem stops at Wikipedia's digital shores. CU/OS edges onto real world territory, so that is More Important to get fixed. I'd advise helping some version of the review board/audit panel get off the ground first, see how it goes, and adapt any admin reviewing process based on that information.--Tznkai (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

1. This is a bottom-up community initiative that neither claims nor asks for authority from the Foundation or its lackeys. If it is successful, its power will be soft rather than hard, and de facto rather than de jure. 2. Attention and effort dedicated to problems is not zero-sum; there is little reason to believe that working forward with Admin Review will harm or drain Checkuser/Oversight initiatives. Skomorokh 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, the hooked in Wikipedia community has as a very limited attention span - and the soft power you talk about will encounter ArbCom sooner or later. Say this process goes through, gets support, steam, yadda yadda. How long is it before its cited, or attacked, or most likley, both, in an Arbitration case? This is presuming with all optimism that the process works well and doesn't become an engine of bad faith pillories - assuming that somehow nothing of that nature goes wrong, it will still find itself in conflict at Arbcom - or being held up as an actual formal process that ArbCom must control or abide by. All roads lead to ArbCom - it is as inevitable and inescapable as a black hole.--Tznkai (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

AdminReview won't be trying to lord it over ArbCom: is that what you're suggesting? I can imagine that occasionally, AdminReview might recommend to parties that they go to ArbCom, but since we are trying to avoid clogging up that body with fine-grained cases, that will be rare, I hope. It is possible that AdminReview might communicate with ArbCom concerning policy matters or recommendations for reform—also not regularly, I hope. ArbCom has an extremely cumbersome hearings process that is often a millstone around the arbitrators' necks; AdminReview, by contrast, will be much narrower and stricter in focus and procedure. Thus, it will add another dimension to WP's efforts to resolve tension and create a more harmonious environment. Tony (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The way I imagine AdminReview working, it will in no way, shape, or form be connected to ArbCom; the sole exception, for want of a better word, is that the most egregious cases here (and I imagine that to be a very small number) will have to go on to ArbCom to be settled. However, this will only be when real abuse occurs. AdminReview will, ideally, lighten the load of ArbCom, by taking in the more frivolous cases and dealing with minor infractions which would only waste the time of the ArbCom. The approval of ArbCom, be it expressed or tacit, is utterly inconsequential to AdminReview. And frankly, and I don't mean to sound dick-ish, I'm shocked that any respected user (which Tznkai is) would suggest that it is necessary to gain the approval of a particular group before taking steps to improve the project. Wikipedia has an organic, ever-changing structure; to suggest that any user or group of users has such despotic control over the actions of other users is ludicrous (well, one could argue about Jimbo's power over the project, but that's another matter altogether).

2. I'm confused by your second point; it seems to be akin to saying, "The most important problem facing the United States is national defense, so no one should even bother worrying about or trying to improve such trifling matters as education or infrastructure." Obviously I'm oversimplifying to make a point, but that does seem to be the gist of what you're saying. faithless (^speak) 08:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Faithless; you've summed up what I'd have said. Tznkai, your fears are in marked contrast to the views of your fellow ArbCom clerk, Daniel. If some admin wants to take AdminReview to ArbCom at some stage, fine, let them: if AdminReview is a good process, it will survive. BTW, I like the look of the admin self-policies displayed on your talk page. They would do WP:ADMIN and AdminReview proud.

Since you've raised the matter of ArbCom, my current and first-ever experience of an ArbCom hearing has been an eye-opener. The process is a serious embarrassment to WP: there is a serious need to reform it. First up is the complete lack of evientiary rules—everyone and their dog is encouraged to write virtually as much as they wish, on anything they like, it appears. It is a magnet for whipping up drama that might otherwise have been played out elsewhere in a more measured way. MBisanz, an admin who initiated and failed in an attempt to delete this page last month, appears to be using the ArbCom hearing as a pay-back. He has done this by loudly trumpetting as "incivility" a comment I made here about how the AdminReview process might be framed (it's the "name and shame" issue, which, incidentally, I disowned shortly after—hardly relevant to an ArbCom case on date-linking, is it). The problem is that his smear attempt might intimidate other participants on this page from engaging in free discussion about AdminReview: I hope not.

The lesson for AdminReview is that its rules of evidence, procedure and supervision must be framed much more tightly that those at ArbCom (well, there are no rules, there, it seems). This is what happens in real-world judiciary processes in an attempt to achieve fairness to all parties. Tony (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at is that AdminReview will end up interfacing with ArbCom sooner or later - and preparing for that eventuality or better yet, preempting it - is a good idea on a purely pragmatic level. Sometimes processes can fail as a result of their success. The reasons that AdminReview in particular will find itself on ArbCom's doorstep: ArbCom is the primary and nearly sole locus of Administrator conduct issues, Jimbo, Stewards, and AN(/I) make up the rest. Legitimate criticism has significant tensions with our civility and personal attack policies - and the community hasn't agreed on where the line is.

As to my Audit Panel/Review board point - its again a pragmatism issue. AdminReview will get off the ground faster if/when the hooked in Wikipedian community is focusing on it. Furthermore, the Audit Panel serves - and may yet function - in a similar way. AdminReview if it gets off will have a much larger population its looking over, so it will probably be more difficult to get it right. Watching the Audit Panel may be a good learning experience.--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On your point on evidential rules and due process - be careful. The unstated and oft forgotten implication of due process is that "justice is what the process produces". Due process by necessity enshrines that process.--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So justice is what the current ArbCom process produces? This seems to be a circular argument. Thanks for your advice in any case. Can you link us to this Audit Panel thing? Tony (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom attempts (and I do mean attempts) to achieve dispute resolution - some sort of wiki justice perhaps - by representative democracy essentially. ArbCom tries to rely on metaphysical truth instead of procedural truth (If I have a bag of crack cocaine , and a cop illegally searches and seizes, the metaphysical truth is I had a bag of crack cocaine, and the procedural truth is who knows) and by taking all of the community input and their own judgement and pushing out a result. It has some clear flaws, but my point was its a different foundation. When you have a due process paradigm "He got off on a technicality" isn't a legitimate complaint - technicalities are justice.--Tznkai (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, advertising goes here: WP:Review Board --Tznkai (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this representative democracy model is whistling in the wind. It doesn't work in that context, and everyone knows it. Not even the notion of consensus on the ground pretends to be democratic. Tony (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Review Board looks like a good move, and has a quite different goal from that here. AdminReview needs to be created from the ground-up, not by the hierarchy, since it involves the alleged mistreatment of citizens by the police. It is inappropriate that the police themselves set up their own system for this, and ANI et al. are clearly failing to protect editors in this respect. There is a lot of support for AdminReview (minus MBisanz, it appears, who's in pay-back mode at the ArbCom hearing—that is one of my complaints, that the ArbCom process could allow such CoI nastiness that is so clearly trumped up and irrelevant to be cast as relevant to the case, and say nothing. It has lost my respect. Here, we will take a very different tack, and it will be the first time that WP has a properly run process with tight evidentiary rules and oversight. It will be interesting to see how well it works, and how much it needs to be adjusted after launching. Tony (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Tony (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of admin accountability and due process, take a look at User_talk:MBisanz/RfBan#Points_of_interest and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu. If this was in the projectspace and being something composed/run by the community at large I would probably like it more. That said the current version is much improved from the pre-MFD version that included appointments to office by you, the exclusion of admins from any coordinator spots, and the focus on recording names for eternity. MBisanz ^talk 17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the intention. As soon as (1) the process and rules of the elections, and (2) the role of third-parties and the issue of how to deal with more than one complainant from the same scenario are resolved, I intend to launch the election and transfer the process to project-space. Tony (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that a primary concern I have is that such a process will actually have the unintended affect of forcing good administrators to resign while not impacting bad administrators. Also, the eagerness to advertise the process concerns me. Looking at the first proposed case, bringing it here from AN was proposed when barely anyone had commented on the thread at AN. Given that BlackKite was able to resolve the matter peaceably without resorting to further admin action, etc, I don't know why it was needed to advertise that "hey, you can also file an adminreview request, do you want to do so?" style. Adminreview really should be about users bringing matters that are stalemated, not about coordinators going out and trying to find interesting cases (imagine arbcom patrolling ANI for cases!). Also, like almost all of our functions, Adminreview is non-binding. Even if it finds a clear case of abuse, it will say "Admin X broke the blocking policy by blocking someone who disagreed with them" Ok, fine. So Admin X ignores the finding and keeps on doing what he was before. Admin X is clearly abusive, but other than being another forum for people to complain (WP:AN and WP:RFC being the existing forums), nothing is done. Now let's look at Admin Y. Admin Y is a nice person who edits and admins within policy. A BadUser violates policy and is blocked by Admin Y. Now BadUser goes and starts an AN thread and is told "no, you messed up and were properly blocked", not being happy he goes to RFC and files against Admin Y, but since everyone agrees BadUser is bad, there is no second certifier and it is deleted. Now BadUser comes here to AdminReview and launches yet again at Admin Y. By now Admin Y has been yelled at for a week for doing nothing wrong and is fed up and retires. And before someone says this is a hypothetical, I have seen it happen at least once in my time on the wiki and can think of at least 3 or 4 admins who would respond in such a way. May I make a suggestion Tony? Require exclusivity of venue. If a person brings a case here from AN, they are precluded from bringing it against the admin in another forum such as WP:RECALL or WP:RFC and if they brought it against the admin in a forum such as those, then it cannot be brought here? Basically that they get two bites at the apple, once at a noticeboard (AN, WQA, etc) and then once at a DR forum (RFC, AR, etc) That might reduce the vexatious litigant issue. MBisanz ^talk 18:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, does "exclusivity of venue" really do anyways? If BadAdmin X decides to abuse someone now, all of our existing channels (AN channels, RFC filing, ARB) are worthless anyways. There is no such thing as a fair hearing on those channels.

Meanwhile, what about NewUser A, who tries to complain at the "official place" first and gets slapped around by BadAdmin X's friends (BadAdmins Q, BadAdmin P, and WannabeAdmins A, C, D, and E). Only later do they come here, and you want to deny them a fair hearing? I think that's beyond harsh and violates the goal of AdminReview entirely.WW,QuisCustodio 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing I find interesting about that Review Board is that its members are given checkuser and oversight rights, but are strictly limited in how they may use them. Strikes me that giving a similar right to those on the AdminReview panel who are not administrators to view deleted pages and so on, with similar constraints on how those functions can be used, would go a long way towards levelling the playing field. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think CU rights et al. must be kept to an absolute minimum. I have no problem in AdminReview's referring an issue to the Review Board or asking its advice. Tony (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of CU, or oversight. I was specifically thinking about the ability to see deleted pages. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Foundation lawyer Mike Godwin vetoed that idea already when Arbcom asked about it. MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He is mistaken. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way is he wrong? I would have thought that as the Foundations lawyer he would have been in a good position to give advice. I realise that you are not the Foundations lawyer, but as a lawyer why do you think is he wrong? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

One would have hoped so, but his argument is clearly illogical, based on a misunderstanding and an illusion. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but unlike yourself and Mike Goodwin I am not a lawyer so you are going to have to explain it much more clearly than that. What is the misunderstanding and illusion? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming to be a lawyer? I can recognise bullshit when I see it though. The illusion is that deleted material is actually deleted. It isn't, and remains visible to several thousand editors. The misunderstanding is a failure to recognise that "deleted" material is still freely available in archiving sites such as Google cache. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that when you made the first statement it was done in such a way that I got the impression that you were a lawyer.

I don't recall saying that I wasn't a lawyer? Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz wants AdminReview to avoid becoming a vehicle whereby diligent administrators are harrassed and abusive admins are left to continue as before. I think everybody can get behind that 100 percent. MBisanz wants to discourage forum shopping – again, very sensible – by requiring exclusivity of venue. What other concerns specifically relating to admins can we think of? The project can only succeed if it's based on "Win-Win", i.e., editors and admins benefit.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Attorney Godwin's response is reasonable, since the privacy implications alone are legally very dangerous for WM (although I do hope he's formally consulted the Board on that matter, since he describes his view as "the Foundation's legal view"). Addendum: interestingly, Godwin says "I normally favor and support community-driven initiatives."
• Bisanz, I certainly don't like the idea of allowing users to bring a case to this process and simultaneously at Recall or RFC or Wikiquette or Mediation, unless the case here involves a breach of admin policy at one of those other venues. My fear is that the tight evidentiary regime here would be undermined by the conducting of a blow-out-type case (no or few limits on participants' texts); it is for the same reason that commentary on current cases here will not be allowed on our talk page. However, we can hardly prevent people from bringing a case here that has already been through the ringer at one of those other venues: this must be disclosed on the filing form, and presumably will be looked at by the Managing Coordinator at our Stage 1 "filter".
• You still haven't withdrawn you framing of me as uncivil at the ArbCom hearing, based on the discourse here about "name and shame" (later dismissed, none other than by me). Nor have you explained the entry. In my eyes, it is degrading the ArbCom process that this spurious, irrlevant accusation is allowed to remain there. Will you make similar accusations of participants here at ArbCom? Tony (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing attitudes to cleaning up WP:ADMIN?

Please see this discussion, where I've pointed out a part of the "uninvolved" policy that appears to have holes in it. Tony (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be very little will for either cleaning up WP:ADMIN or cleaning up the behaviour of administrators. I didn't agree with the AN report of a conflict of interest in this particular case simply because wikipedia defines a coi as "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." That clearly wasn't the case here. The real fault was in an administrator blocking an editor with whom he was in dispute, but that's increasingly become considered to be acceptable. Which it clearly is not. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but surely it's fine by all if an admin blocks a nasty vandal where the only "involvement" is that the target was the admin's own talk page. My concern is that although the admin policy wording seems to cover this kind of scenario, it could be more tightly worded; and just what does "sometimes" mean? To the participants at that talk section, I pose the question: why not be fussy about getting the wording of such an important policy watertight, of cleaning if up to achieve maximum clarity? Tony (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The less wiggle room there is, the less wiggle room there is - unclear policies are easier to exploit and twist. Those in power are unlikely to give it up, and the less wiggle room in policy, the less power they have. WW,QuisCustodio 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And while we're discussing "vague" admin policies, one of the very worst is where it says something to the effect that while 3RR means "three reverts in a row in a 24-hour period", an admin can nonetheless determine that you've been edit warring even if you HAVEN'T MADE MORE THAN THREE REVERTS IN A ROW. While this provision may originally have been designed to address instances of so-called "low-level" or "slow-burn" edit war over extended periods of time, it has simply become another tool employed by abusive admins, illustrating the true meaning of WP:IAR, which is, "I, Admin, Rule." Arbitrary, willful, capricious misuse of power. (Hello, Tiptoety.) (Tony, this is your Talk page so please feel free to move this into a separate sub-page.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GMW: Increased power of admins over non-admins is necessary to protect the project, us and our text. The 3RR "slow edit-war" thing is a problem, I believe; however, I've had no success trying to think of a way of tightening it up. It does say that warnings are required first, which is a minimum in fairness. Have you any proposals for how to make it better?

Quis: I agree with your general sentiment, although not your attack on the general character of admins. Tony (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How about an automatic timed suspension of sysop rights in cases of obvious abuse? Unwarranted placement of a block threat (which is what a warning is) being one. Let's face it, before admins decide what to do they look first at a user's Talk page. If the user was blocked in the past for 24 hours for a like infraction, they hand out a longer block this time (72 hours or whatever they feel like). If the Talk page is "clean" and the "infraction" is a first-time non-major offense, then a block threat. If a block threat was given, then a 24-hour or whatever they feel like block. So, an unjustified block threat already puts a user on the slippery slope to being blocked, then - at some later date - blocked again "because they're still not getting it" and - yet later - having every unblock request dismissed out of hand because "look at the length of your block log".
An unjustified (read: he looked at me funny / I'm in a bad mood today / I'm handing out a political favor) block threat, such as "for edit warring" when objective criteria have not been met, should result in automatic one-week suspension of sysop powers, no lengthy process required. An unjustified block, a longer suspension. As far as AdminReview is concerned, there can only be a recommendation of such; the mechanism has to be set up elsewhere.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How about an automatic timed suspension of sysop rights in cases of obvious abuse? - First you have to get a sizable number of current admins to admit there was abuse, something which has been impossible for the vast majority of the time wikipedia has been around.

So, an unjustified block threat already puts a user on the slippery slope to being blocked, then - at some later date - blocked again "because they're still not getting it" and - yet later - having every unblock request dismissed out of hand because "look at the length of your block log". See also: Scarlet Letter harassment. Interestingly, a google search I ran to see if anyone else used this term came up with an interesting livejournal as second result that seems to mirror a lot of what we have discussed here. WW,QuisCustodio 15:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is far too dramatic a proposal for the moment, and for this process. AdminReview, mild as it is, will be a significant step for WP—just gaining acceptance of an advisory system that investigates and judges complaints about admins is not going to be easy. I note what you say, but would prefer that the discussion be kept to a technical level and what is practically possible, and have a more positive angle. Get the community to accept the process first, and then—if it's shown to work well—one might have a chance of further reform. But for the moment, softly softly, please, since the general agreement of both admins and non-admins (at least sufficient support to avoid an attack on the existence of AdminReview via MfD or ArbCom) is required to launch it. I also don't want admins to suspect that this is some kind of medium-term plot to threaten their role: it is certainly not that. Things tend to be done gradually on a wiki, and this is the politics of gaining the trust of both groups. Tony (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requests: the views of an Arbitrator

In view of the discussion above, I thought I'd post here User:Carcharoth's view in response to a question I put during the recent ArbCom election:

My view is that though there are several processes for appealing blocks (the {{unblock}} template, the unblock mailing list, contacting the administrator who made the block, and appealing to the Arbitration Committee), there can be problems with some of these processes. In particular, I've seen less than ideal rejection of "unblock" requests that give an impression of confirmation bias, rather than having a new administrator independently review the situation. My personal approach to tackling unblock requests or appeals is to look at the arguments presented by both sides, but not to form a view until the evidence shows what has been happening. In other words, to look at what happened, rather than rubber-stamp the description provided by the blocking administrator. As to how to ensure that all admins that respond to unblock requests do this, sadly I don't think this is possible at the moment. One thing I would like to see is a way to record who deals with particular unblock requests. At the moment, unblock requests are not logged anywhere, so it is difficult to tell how many unblock requests are prematurely or incorrectly turned down. Logging of unblock requests would be a starting point, I think.

I'd be keen to hear constructive comments arising from this. Tony (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, does Carcharoth ever understate the case.

In particular, I've seen less than ideal rejection of "unblock" requests that give an impression of confirmation bias, rather than having a new administrator independently review the situation.

These are the norm, rather than the exception.

rather than rubber-stamp the description provided by the blocking administrator

This is almost always what actually happens.

One thing I would like to see is a way to record who deals with particular unblock requests

Actually, one thing you can do is open up a lot of unblock-requested pages, wait for the denial, and then look through who denied and why. I tracked this way a while back and discovered the following of the pages I managed to catch:

1 - there were only 6 or 7 admins doing denials

2 - Denials were almost uniformly of the "rubberstamp" type, and 99% were done with simple boilerplate responses that had little, if any, bearing on the merit of either side.

3 - I further clicked on the Contribs of a few of the admins, and found even more unblock-denials that I had missed. In many cases, these admins were denying unblocks within 2-3 minutes TOPS of the unblock being filed, certainly not enough time for any chance that an honest review was ever conducted.

I don't know quite how to fix this either. I know the system stinks, and I know the unblock-filing process has become a joke, a perhaps well-intentioned idea that was destroyed by bad-admins patrolling the category page and by the ridiculous "check with the blocking admin" roadblock that makes it easy for the blocking admin to just remain tight-lipped and forestall any action on a case.

My suggestions are as follows:

1 - Yes, DO log unblock denials. Please.

2 - Unblock requests deserve a real review. In most cases, this never happens. Allow unblocks to happen immediately, but don't allow them to be denied before a reasonable time (say, 4 hours) has passed.

3 - Require a denial to include diffs, and reasoned response, not simply something to the effect of "you didn't give a reason you should be unblocked" (favorite of two of the current abusive sods "patrolling" cat:unblock)

4 - WP:GAB needs a complete rewrite, if not deletion. Right now, it's exactly the opposite of helpful, and seems deliberately phrased to enflame already heightened emotions.

5 - Admins should never be allowed to lock the talkpage of anyone, save for the case where they start posting personal info or something similar. If you lock the talk page of someone who leaves an angry first unblock appeal, you never know if they would have calmed down or not, and you've just abused someone (for the second time) who is already angry. IF on the other hand you leave their rant up, you give them the chance to calm down and change their own words. Let them rant themselves out: you lose nothing by doing so.

6 - Get rid of the ridiculous "must talk with the blocking admin" bullshit, really. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen an admin either (a) remain mum just to avoid seeing an unblock granted, (b) actually say "I don't have time to talk about it, don't do anything until I return" (we watched one recently where he extended the block on someone he was in a content dispute based on nothing other than the fact that he was going on "vacation" for a week, and then posted "nobody attend this situation till I return", just to stop the guy editing while he was away). Option C, "take it to WP:ANI, is so full of trollish bad-admins and trollish admin-wannabes that it's even worse, nobody ever gets a remotely fair hearing there.

Those are my suggestions. Take them or leave them. WW,QuisCustodio 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I endorse WW's amplification of Carcharoth's views.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Carcaroth gets it about right. ¶ QC's proposal Allow unblocks to happen immediately, but don't allow them to be denied before a reasonable time (say, 4 hours) has passed. seems a good one. ¶ If blocked people (and others) want to vent on their own talk pages, then yes, it does seem a good idea to let them do so. A minority of these people seem to want to broadcast their fantasies about what other people should do with their genitals. I find this merely puerile but it seems that some people are genuinely offended; this might conceivably be an issue (though then again I don't know why those with delicate sensibilities would be looking at nitwits' talk pages). ¶ I wonder why QC says that a denial [should] include diffs, and reasoned response, not simply something to the effect of "you didn't give a reason you should be unblocked" (favorite of two of the current abusive sods "patrolling" cat:unblock). It's the responsibility of the person wanting to be unblocked to explain (or point to an explanation of) why the block was, or why its continuation is, unwarranted. As an admin (and perhaps therefore an abusive sod), I hope I am open to rational appeal and willing to make allowances for agitation; however, if there's no inkling of a rational appeal, then "you didn't give a reason you should be unblocked" sounds to me like an adequate response. (NB the appeal can be perfunctory and even curt, e.g. "The reason given for the block contains a false allegation", but there has to be something there.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Hoary, but I'm fairly certain that when WW wrote the above, he was thinking about unblock requests being refused, ostensibly, on the rationale that "you didn't give a reason you should be unblocked" but what the admin really means is, "The reason you gave for wanting to be unblocked does not register with me as valid." If I'm wrong then I'm sure WW will correct me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of the person wanting to be unblocked to explain (or point to an explanation of) why the block was, or why its continuation is, unwarranted. Gotta love a system run by a bunch of Judge Dredd types in a guilty-until-proven-innocent world.

Regarding requiring a reason for decline: I have seen ridiculous decline reasons. I have seen ones that read like "kiss my boots first or you don't get unblocked." I have, more than once, seen "The reason given for the block is false" responded to by "locking your talkpage because you made a personal attack on the admin who blocked you." And I've seen unblock requests that listed diffs, and policy, rejected for "you didn't give a reason you should be unblocked." This is ridiculous, and the fact that unblock request denials get no tracking and no review is apparently by design to make the system easily abused. WW,QuisCustodio 20:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of all declined unblock requests where the person was no indef blocked [1]. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Me: It's the responsibility of the person wanting to be unblocked to explain (or point to an explanation of) why the block was, or why its continuation is, unwarranted. QC's response: Gotta love a system run by a bunch of Judge Dredd types in a guilty-until-proven-innocent world. No, it's not a "guilty till proven innocent" world. It's a matter of an appeal, an "assumed proven guilty until intelligible and at least mildly plausible objections are raised" stage in an "innocent till proven guilty" world. Of course, a critic is free to reject the notion of an appeal and say that anyone who's blocked has the right to demand a reinvestigation for any reason or no reason at all. To me, this smells like a huge waste of time. ¶ I have seen [decline reasons] that read like "kiss my boots first or you don't get unblocked." To call such a request childish would be charitable. Paging Prof Zimbardo. I have, more than once, seen "The reason given for the block is false" responded to by "locking your talkpage because you made a personal attack on the admin who blocked you." Quite aside from the question of whether a personal attack on the blocking admin is a reason to lock the talk page (and I'd say it isn't), "The reason given for the block is false" is obviously not a personal attack (although it might be accompanied by one). Well, this kind of admin behavior is abusive. ¶ the fact that unblock request denials get no tracking and no review is apparently by design to make the system easily abused Oh? This is news to me. -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) [Minor point: I realize that my use of pilcrows is unusual, but it is deliberate and I think that the result is quite clear. Please don't tamper with it, however amicable your intention, unless you happen to be the owner of the page. Thanks, Hoary (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)]

* * * If you're looking for sections that were here before, they have been moved to this new page.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC) * * *

the basic error

the basic error here has now been illustrated by several unfounded or poorly founded complaints, which could be dealt with under normal procedures. The error, of course, is the the remedy for one over-bureaucratic process is to erect an additional one. there are already several possible simultaneously available ways to complain about other editors and about administrators: your user talk, their user talk, someone else's user talk, email to anyone who might be sympathetic, article talk, wikiproject talk, deletion review, the talk pages of any or all of the policies involved, ANB, AN/I, the noticeboards for BLP, FRINGE, RS, NPOV, and COI, the Village Pumps, Editor assistance, WQA, RfC User, individual arbitrators, and eventually arbcom. There are also available off-project the WP blog, the mailing lists, the blogs of various editors and ex-editors, IRC, private email and Skype, the various pages of other similar projects, some sites that are traditionally unmentionable but widely read, a few journalists who don't understand Wikipedia, and anywhere on the rest of the internet. In a maze like this, the chances of getting attention to a justified real serious complain depend on being noticed (I certainly dont want to deny there are such justified real serious complaints). This is a matter of balance, because if one posts and too many places one is likely to be considered a crank and ignored altogether. The easiest way to make the system worse is to add another place for complaints--a place, furthermore, without any actual powers to do anything that will really serve a a remedy except through one of the existing channels. If the hope of this is to deal with those with sufficient personal influence to be impervious to complaints, experience on Wikipedia and in the RW is that unless they make an unforgivable error of some sort they will remain invulnerable. DGG (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If AdminReview were like the free-form discussions on this page then you'd be right. We don't need another talking shop / kvetching venue / gabfest / gripe-a-palooza. What makes AdminReview different is the tight format that is strictly based on WP policies. It will take some getting used to for editors who have been taking part in the sprawling slugfests that are unfortunately the norm in the usual venues. Time will tell. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

True, if it replaced some of the other places, then this might be worth it. Somehow I doubt it, bureaucracy tends to multiple, not diminish. I think this especially likely in this case because the process does not actually provide any compulsory remedy. there is no mechanism of enforcement, so anything serious done here will have to be redone elsewhere. So it's only a place for comments from a select group--which does have a use, but I don;t see it replacing anything. But as you said, we'll see. DGG (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DGG, this is a mere talk page, which will contain no comment on live cases. At this stage, I'm willing to put up with a few people who want to vent (up to a point). The process still has a few things to be nutted out. I believe you judge prematurely, and would appreciate your critical comments about the process itself (mechanistically) in mid-March, when it should be firming up. Tony (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New page: Training Ground

I was bold and set up a new page for practicing the AdminReview process. Click here to get there. In addition, I've moved off several of the most recent sections from here to the new page. We want to keep this page here focused on discussing the AdminReview process. This is not a talking shop for free-form discussion of ongoing cases at AN/I or similar venues.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it seriously believed

...that anyone will pay attention to this half-baked homebrew kangaroo court? A toothless one, at that ("AdminReview does not issue binding decisions, enforcement or judgements on any Wikipedian; it does not place on parole, block, or desysop...") - is the plan, then, to gum admins you don't like to death?

The time spent rearranging the deckchairs on this Titanic piece of amateur bureaucratic nonsense would be far better used on building the encyclopedia. — Hex (❝?!❞) 04:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And the Facepalm Barnstar for inadvertently illustrating precisely the sort of dismissive, imperious administrator attitude this initiative is intended to review goes to... Skomorokh 05:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It should certainly been phrased much better but boiled down it's pretty right on. How exactly would this process review that comment that we don't already have a process for? This is an absolutely needless level of bureacracy. This page is an example of everything that's wrong with Wikipedia right now. It'll be tagged as historical/rejected in an MFD if it ever leaves userspace. RxS (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps these attitudes are why so many WPians—admins and other editors—believe this page is an essential instrument of reform (although I don't want to overstate its importance). Please (1) review the archived discussions to see why this page is necessary before making such a sweeping, simplistic edit summary, and (2) assume good faith, at least until you see what is clearly in bad faith. Earle Martin is a relatively new admin, and it would be unfortunate to encourage him to believe that breaches of the policies that govern admin behaviour are unimportant. Such complacency can be identified among only a small minority of admins; by contrast, most are valuable assets to the project.

Having said that, we're keen to take on criticism of the process, even the basic concepts, as AdminReview moves towards elections. Your constructive input is welcome. Tony (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some admins abuse their powers, they're not reprimanded, they can just simply choose to ignore the complaint. I can give you an example of this, but not on this page (happy to post to anyone's talk page per request). Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have a good one (case, that is) in mind. Fresh as a daisy, too. Maybe we can swap notes? Ohconfucius (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any evidence that a significant number of editors thinks this is an essential instrument of reform. You are also making a mistake that's becoming more common here, you're mistaking good faith for good judgment. I have no doubt this is being done in good faith, but that doesn't stop me from doubting whether good judgment is being used. One of the problems with this is the expectation that a very small number of elected "coordinators" will have better judgment here than the Wikipedia community as a whole in an RFC or AN/I posting. We have processes for admin abuse, a unofficial, highly...highly bureaucratic process in someone's userspace is not going to improve it.

There is no question at all in my mind that there are a small group of admins that really need to improve their admin actions or put the tools down. But this is not the way to accomplish that. You have tranches, coordinators, managing coordinators, complainants, rejoinders, special applications...all in a non-binding process that has no powers whatsoever. I'm not sure how you think anyone ( as in more than the 20 or 30 editors active on this page right now) is going to take all this seriously. Like I said, there are processes in place for this purpose, you should be putting all this effort into improving those...I don't mean to be unpleasant but this is just inane and almost certainly headed for MFD if it's ever moved (or even becomes active after "elections". RxS (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• It went twice to MfD in one day, and was overwhelmingly endorsed (while I slept, both times). It will be in project space. The current mechanisms are very very bad at dealing the need for proper community oversight of admin adherence to their policy obligations. Few people doubt that. I don't have time for another week to go into this all over again. After that, I'd like to engage with your criticisms more fully. Tony (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference is of course is that it wasn't live and it wasn't in project space. If you do move it into project space you'd better put a proposed tag on it. RxS (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• rStrangeLove, feel free to ignore QuisCustodio. We frequently do. He swings from occasional lucidity to paranoia, and is not representative of the intentions of the editors here assembled. All are welcome, but please leave your guns at the threshold. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

*A few posts immediately above were removed per the notice at the top of this page. Quis, just so you know, you overstepped the mark here. Please be more cooperative; I think we're all losing patience with your overt anger; keep a lid on it, please. I apologise for the removal of respondents' comments that were related to the indiscretion. Tony (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Informal process of editor review

Ordinary editors are regularly whacked with the latest run of huggle warnings (most of these are accidental). Sometimes admins make bad, unilateral decisions. Perhaps it is time that *editors* themselves should develop an informal review process, closed to administrators. A sort of anti-ANI/ArbCom. The decisions of the various higher bureaucratic divisions of Wikipedia ultimately take precedence, but this would at least provide a sounding board for the common editor to have his or her own voice heard, and not immediately sneered at by administrators. (The footnote here is that whenever I seem to post to a public forum here, I am almost immediately ridiculed by an administrator.) Sławomir Biała (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should face the fact the admins are no better and no worse than ordinary editors in what they do for their own personal reasons, working on articles, dealing with other editors in the role of article editors, etc. They are as likely to become unreasonable and vindictive as any other editor. However, they do perform a large number of useful janitorial functions, and that is to be commended, as I have no desire to spend my time doing those things. I do a few rollbacks, and that is pretty much it. So I am glad there are those admims who are willing to take on the burden of the clerical work. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a fact that I am certainly aware of. I wish it were more popularly known on both sides of the "admin" divide. 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sławomir Biała (talk • contribs)

Admin DDStretch resigns

There was always an unspoken assumption in the AdminReview project, namely that the good-faith efforts to put in place an orderly process for addressing valid grievances of editors against individual administrators would be recognized as useful and valuable not just by the Wikipedia community in general, but also by administrators and especially by arbitrators, since some findings from the AdminReview process would require follow-up from Arbcom, especially when it comes to sanctions for admin misbehavior.

Recent events have disabused me of that notion. I no longer have faith in the goodwill of the majority of admins, and especially I have lost most of my respect for arbitrators, whose impartiality and skills in the date delinking arbitration have been simply abysmal.

When you can't change the system from within, the most honorable course of action is to walk away with your integrity intact. That is what admin DDStretch has done, whose resignation statement today provides details.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't disagree. Something has to be done about the lack of accountability, mixed with the anonymity of the username/account system, a dangerous cocktail. Here's a timely quotation that Ohconfucius has alerted me to:

Wikipedia’s administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors.

Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin’s editorial point of view. There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor, and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for misbehaviour.

WP is starting to look like an unpleasant, at times abusive, environment. We need to institute at least basic measures to balance the existing, under-accountable power structure. Tony (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Very important straw poll: Removing admin rights

Please see here. Tony (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2