Apologies if this is already on another thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/AdminWatch

The talk page is quite funny

Despite a bunch of admins (led by that rather sinister busy-body MBisanz (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) trying to strangle Tony1's admin-watch scheme at birth, Tony is still beavering away at refining his project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/AdminWatch

As I've said before, if anyone can pull something like this off, that Tony1 guy is surely the most likely. He seems completely different to your average Wikipedio. Shame he hasn't become a critic yet, because we could do with someone like him on our squad.

Tony is a good guy who has been with the project some time. He is professional copy writer and really cares about the quality of the writing that goes into articles. Also (if I remember right) he has something on his user page about not giving a f--- about being an admin.

I expect that will have something to do with this.

I expect that will have something to do with this.

Comments by Tony1:

* It is extraordinary that a process for the independent scrutiny of admin actions in relation to the policy guidelines is sufficiently threatening to attract two attempts in one day by admins to derail it.
read on...

Hey look - they had a nice pile-on on WP:ANI, followed by starting to ban people from wikipedia merely for contributing to this one. Guess it fails for the same reason anything else fails, you have to get anything with a prayer of sanctioning admins for abuse past the rest of the abusive shits. Front and center on the block, the ever-abusive dickweed JzG, and following up the equally malicious jpgordon, with an assist from Tanthalas39, who first says no policy is being breached, then comes back and declines the unblock anyways. I wonder who sent him a nice threatening, private email saying "you'd better be on board or I'll cause you trouble" - just the sort of shithead move JzG always pulls and everyone lets him get away with.

And of course, they're in full abuse mode now...

And then of course there's the lying scum shit going on even more right now - Black Kite lying his fucking face off claiming a commenter was a "TOR Proxy" (I call bullshit, there's no fucking proxy there, I scanned it myself and it has only one edit anyways), Scarian making threats against Malleus Fatuorum, the whole nine yards.

What you really MEAN to say is YOU abused someone, you got caught, and rather than just fess up to it and fix your own mistake, you're a typical scumwad abuser who decided to kill the messenger.

Face facts. You made a block that wasn't in line with policy, then you admitted openly that you do this all the time by making a default "policy" to block for 31 hours as a base.

Of course, since you're an abusive jerk admin, you have no problem lying through your rotten teeth about what you did and what the situation is any more than JzG, jpgordon, or the rest of the scum do.

And then of course there's the lying scum shit going on even more right now - Black Kite lying his fucking face off claiming a commenter was a "TOR Proxy" (I call bullshit, there's no fucking proxy there, I scanned it myself and it has only one edit anyways), Scarian making threats against Malleus Fatuorum, the whole nine yards.

This instance is just another example of how you shithead lying admins cover up for each other, especially the wikilawyering bit. You don't really want to see wikipedia cleaned up, you'll never consider the possibility that you were wrong, and you don't even want to see anyone attempt to point out when another admin screwed up unless they bend down, crawl, kiss your boots, and lick something grosser first. I went through this shit when I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet for no reason other than a jumped-up cocksucker of an admin decided they needed someone new to abuse in order to "extend" an arbcom block, I watched the same thing happen to at least a dozen other people, and of course any attempt to fix it fails miserably thanks to "people" (if you even fucking qualify as such) like you.

I call it as I see it. You don't "support" fixing the system. You're the judo arm of the misinformation operation, the Microsoft "embrace, extend, redirect" player, just as JzG is the crazy asswad with a hammer who thinks his job is to smash everything in sight.

Black Kite, as I remember, was the one Wales warned me off criticising (private email). He contributed to my RFAR, talking about some evidence againts Phdarts (an anti-pedophile editor I had defended). Later, on this forum, he admitted he knew nothing about Phdart's editing. Just indef blocked because he was told to. Right? Do you have children, Black Kite?

And of course the "tool" he refers to never returns anything but a positive, I just ran it on my own machine and it lied there too.

I don't have "trolling socks", or any "socks" for that matter except the nice woolen ones I put on my feet before inserting my feet into my shoes.

So I guess you can just bite me, shitboy.

This instance is just another example of how dishonest admins cover up for each other, and use "wikilawyering" to do it. These people don't really want to see Wikipedia cleaned up, and will never consider the possibility that they were wrong - they don't even want to see anyone attempt to point out when another admin made a mistake, unless they go through some sort of elaborate groveling appeasement ritual first. I went through this nonsense when I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet, for no reason other than an overzealous, self-gratification-obsessed admininstrator decided they needed someone new to abuse in order to "extend" an arbcom block. Subsequently, I watched the same thing happen to at least a dozen other people, and of course, any attempt to fix this sort of thing fails miserably, thanks to people like you.

...we'll probably have to treat it as a thread-derailment attempt and split it out into the tar pit.

[MBisanz's] "involvement" concerns his leading an (unsuccessful) attempt to delete my AdminReview page, and the potential for conflict of interest in attempting to slur me in this judicial context by quoting me from that page he tried to delete, representing a comment I made which has nothing to do with either this case or incivility. I believe that both diffs should be withdrawn immediately: one as irrelevant; the other as in bad faith with potential conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz is an occasional member here, but is prone to some silly antics. Remember him removing Brandt's comments from a BLP discussion page, and then running to the admins noticeboard to tell tales on PrivateMusings who rightfully restored them?

I was not the person who removed Brandt's comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204742064

I was not the person who removed Brandt's comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204742064

== Privatemusing posting for banned user ==

At [[Wikipedia_talk:OptOut]] {{User|Privatemusings}} has reinserted comments made by banned user Mr. Brandt. Mr. Brandt confirmed on WR after having been blocked here that they were indeed his comments. Privatemusings should already know better than to post for a banned user and to revert the removal of a banned users comments. Further, one of the principles in his [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Decorum|arbcom]] was that users should not game the system, proxying of an unbanned user for a banned user would seem to be just that. [[User:MBisanz]] 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One important potential problem they'll need to take into account is the "Moulton Factor". This is when a beady eyed veteran of online buffoonery makes a complaint about some perceived injustice - and then drags multiple parties into an excruciating chess game of ever more depressing exchanges with no resolution in sight. A kind of online mental Escher nightmare that saps the life of anyone who gets involved - and is certainly capable of downing a project like Tony's.

We seem to be trying to legislate Clue. There is no form of wording that will make a determined POV-pusher or wikilawyer shut up, because there is nothing we can do to make that happen short of banning them, and even that often takes a year or more to finally get rid of them. I've only seen one thread recently on AN about this, and the result was so obvious that the complainant was rapidly sent away with a flea in their ear. Some admins will go to ANI or IRC for a block on an IP that is vandalising their talk page in retaliation for a block or other action, others will just handle it as part of the same block or action. As long as the vandalism is low-grade and blindingly obvious then there's really no need to have additional process or hurdles, and if anything the current wording could be shortened for clarity. In the end I think Mr Sanger had it right: "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." Let's wind back m:CREEP and keep things simple. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Actually, if you wanted to "wind back instruction creep", you'd conduct a good cleansing of all of the redundancy, repetition and poor organisation on this policy page. I think I could probably present you with a draft that says the same things in two-thirds of the space, but is much clearer and easier to access than the current text (for admins and non-admins). I presume that you're not against the cleaning up of such an important text ...
2. Why would you want to "ban" a wikilawyering editor? That appears to be what you're suggesting. Wouldn't it be better to silence them by gaining a little rappart, engaging, and at worst ignoring? Banning should be used as a last resort, according to the policy.
3. In any case, this is policy, and the wording really does count, especially as admin actions can be surrounded by highly emotive situations. It is in all our interests for the wording to be as simple as possible, with the right level of detail (which is a problem in quite a few places). The page is not at all in a good state (it reminds me of the higgledy-piggledy ad-hoc build-on architecture of some older hospitals). Is there an inherent resistance to suggesting, discussing and implementing improvements? Tony (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dollar says someone high up in the cabal will delete it, and nobody will have the nerve
to bring it back. Just a matter of time.

The vote on keeping AdminWatch is a fairly good indicator of who are decent
admins (voted to keep), and who are the bastards (delete).

Sceptre, MBisanz, MZMcBride, Redvers, Scarian and (of course) JzG all want it deleted.....

Those guys tend to vote as a bunch, whenever something comes up
that tries to shine some light on their secret dirty tricks.

Dollar says someone high up in the cabal will delete it, and nobody will have the nerve
to bring it back. Just a matter of time.

Sceptre, MBisanz, MZMcBride, Redvers, Scarian and (of course) JzG all want it deleted.....

Those guys tend to vote as a bunch, whenever something comes up
that tries to shine some light on their secret dirty tricks.

The vote on keeping AdminWatch is a fairly good indicator of who are decent
admins (voted to keep), and who are the bastards (delete).

Sceptre, MBisanz, MZMcBride, Redvers, Scarian and (of course) JzG all want it deleted.....

Those guys tend to vote as a bunch, whenever something comes up
that tries to shine some light on their secret dirty tricks.

Dollar says someone high up in the cabal will delete it, and nobody will have the nerve
to bring it back. Just a matter of time.

You know, it's surprising that Scarian didn't learn anything from his own little encounter with Jimbo's wrath. You have to be pretty hard-headed to not rethink things after something like that happens to you.

RFC/Sceptre I also de-rollbackered him and supported banning him at various points

No system is perfect, but the motivation is there to review and fine-tune AdminReview once it starts. The two key differences between it and the existing processes are (1) its focus on relatively narrow questions of whether a breach of admin policy has or has not occurred, and (2) strict evidentiary rules to limit bloat and the duration and complexity of the process, and to maximise the likelihood of procedural fairness. You may wish to read the FAQs; the third-party/multiple complainant issue, and the arrangements for the election of coordinators, have not been fully resolved. Another difference is that AdminReview will rely on the good faith of the parties, not muscle or the will of the crowd. It will aim to attract candidates with specific skills (see Coordinators). Tony (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

At present, probably the most productive "AdminReview" comes from this site - Wikipedia Review. Over the years, despite the acres of garbage that arrives at our doors - this place has had some impact on poor behavior. Perhaps Tony's AdminReview can take some of that dismal workload off our hands? And mean that this site can get on with more productive chatter than "boo hoo I hate that meany admin" stuff.

Elections for the Coordinators are likely to be held in mid-March.

According to Tony



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/AdminWatch

According to Tony



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/AdminWatch

In the end I think Mr Sanger had it right: "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." Guy (Help!) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A paradox. For if "Mr. Sanger" was right, how is it that he himself was shown the door not long thereafter? And then, how could he BE right? Does it not boggle your mind to think on it, Guy?

And what are we doing reading old Sanger essays, anyway? And giving him the respectful "Mr." (even if he is by now a Ph.D.) That all sounds very sneaky and subversive.

You subversive, you.

Well, look who's talking, oh, he who uses a fake WP user name...

Alas, it also contains a few people like David Gerard and Jimbo Wales. But then again, they STARTED with the mojo (a common pattern is also for people to start out with pseudos and decloak once they collect mojo). Subtract people who did something of THAT kind, and the list is shorter still. But I'm still on it. You're not.