User talk:Tony1

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

Real-life workload: 3

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

State Route 74 (New York – Vermont)'s FAC

Care to revisit? We worked on your issues :).Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 17:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Solved. I don't understand. Why do you want to limit what articles we get to FAC? Isn't that imposing big brother on FACing articles?Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming the project and the officers

I kind of like The Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python) as a title for the process and the officers could be called Gumbys. So would you prefer I now lock myself into the Stocks or the Pillory? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		I am not at all sure how you remain civil throughout all that page but you do, so I thought I would force this barnstar on you. "You're a better man than I am" CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AdminReview

Just a note that I have semi-protected both User:Tony1/AdminReview and User talk:Tony1/AdminReview for the time being following vandalism by a series of TOR Proxy IPs. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

script-assisted date/terms audit on British Airways Flight 38

When you go through an article stripping out date formatting like you did on British Airways Flight 38 can you please make sure that the dates are left in consistant formats, including those in the references - you made the one in the body of the text consistent but not those in the references, which were left in a mix of formats. Thank you.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that inconsistency is what your readers have been exposed to for many years; the application of the script made that aspect neither better nor worse. MOSNUM states:

Dates in article body text should all have the same format. Dates in article references should all have the same format.

I hope this solves the problem for you. Tony (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, good on you! Actually, Tony's edit was an improvement as it rectified some of the American formatted (mmm dd yy) dates, replacing them with British format, leaving only ISO formatted dates. I see you finished the job manually. There is no easy/automated way of dealing with ISO formatted dates. We have found that universal conversion of these dates applied all articles leads to undesirable conversion of dates which have been so deliberately formatted, so it has been abandoned. I am aware there is still a problem, which I also go around fixing, but it is a relatively minor one by comparison with the overlinked dates. We will think more about the problem and maybe there will be a solution n due course. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, Lightmouse and I could do with your input here, please. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your offer

First, you should be aware that whoever was hitting your page and other spots last night, it was definitively not me. Using IP-sockpuppetry would, and the false accusation did, defeat the purpose of my ever posting. It was either other abused editors who felt the chance for some revenge or some mischief, or else it was an administrator(s) using TOR and IP sockpuppetry as a WP:ROLE account. I personally suspect the latter, as it wouldn't be the first time that abusive administrators had used a False Flag operation in order to consolidate power, make supposedly "necessary" changes that would otherwise never gain consensus because they have only power-consolidation and imbalancing as their purpose, or simply to justify abusing an editor (e.g. "see, he's using sockpuppets, throw the book at him"). Please notice that even now, I'm not interested in cussing at people (why would I be?). If I ever did cuss, you're more than welcome to point it out from my contributions. The abusive administrator(s) poorly impersonating me, by contrast, seems to be a true example of this theory in action.

As regards your offer to communicate via email, what real assurances do I have that it would remain "confidential"? Wikipedia history is replete with examples of "confidential" emails not remaining so. For that matter, I actually did try clicking the "email" tab from the previous, only to find out that an admin is abusive enough to have clicked up the "deny email" button (I suspect, given his abusive and incivil history, that he simply does this by default whenever issuing a block).

As regards "a pitiful fool", I don't consider you such, but either you're hopelessly naive or you have never been on Wikipedia's IRC channel (or the administrators' channel), or you would know better than to trust this or the people involved in it.

Final point: I received a "was it you" email, obviously BCC'ed to a large number of people, to my main account's email early this morning. You'll forgive me if I consider my concerns about receiving abusive emails and phone calls on this topic 100% justified now. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd just have to trust me. There's little incentive for me to break confidentiality in this case, and considerable risk in doing so. Tony (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC) PS I wish you'd avoid (1) whole-class comments on admins, and (2) accusations of admins by name. If you've never met a hard-working, skilled, professional, NPOV admin, perhaps you should get to know some. Your blanket accusations are unfair and lack credibility—at the very least, I recommend you constrain the scope of your negative remarks to a section of the class in question. Accusing people by name is unacceptable on my talk page, for obvious reasons. You will immediately find that your comments gain greater traction if you give people a little lattitude; that is what you need from admins, so you could do no better than offering quid pro quo. My offer to correspond by email remains open. Tony (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have a little problem then, since you have given me no reason to trust you and plenty of reason to distrust you so far. And there is plenty of incentive for you to break confidentiality, involving the "goodwill" of any number of abusive administrators who I am 100% sure would love to get their hands on anything that might "lead" them to my main account at this point. They've already begun trolling emails (and I bet a few checkusers were run, not that normal peons get to see when they are unless our so-called "beloved leaders" deign to say so), to see if they can find me.

If you've never met a hard-working, skilled, professional, NPOV admin, perhaps you should get to know some. - I've met them before. The problem is, the good ones have already left the project being sick of what was going on. The behavior of the rest has gotten worse and worse over time, as places like WP:ANI have turned from being actual places for the work of the encyclopedia to get done, into echo chambers full of nothing but corrupt admins and game-playing wannabes who trade "support" of bad administrator actions for protection of their own bad behavior later.

I knew five good ones who quietly hung up their hat after the whole "Wheel War Policy" nonsense went down, because they saw precisely what its real purpose was; to further put up bureaucracy roadblocks in the way of stopping bad administrator actions from being undone. Unblock requests used to be somewhat effective, before the Wikipedia:Wheel_war policy. After that point, the good ones on Unblock patrol left the project, leaving us with the abusive types and newly-cut "admin from wannabe" WP:ANI hangers who "cut their teeth" by walking around, not investigating anything, and leaving decline notices like "this doesn't actually specify a reason for unblocking" or "declined because you said something bad about the admin" to users who point out that their blocks are unjustified via policy, then lock the page or extend the block just for spite.

You say, contradictorily, "I wish you'd avoid (1) whole-class comments on admins, and (2) accusations of admins by name." Functionally, you can only have one or the other. Either they're collectively guilty (in the terms of "this is how administrators do X, Y, Z") or else I have to bring up a specific case. More often than not, these discussions have fallen into the administrators' favorite wikilawyering game of "your complaint is too generic, bring a specific case", followed by picking at the case like a murder of crows until they've completely threadjacked it, then following up by accusing the bringing user of "disruption" for "wasting their time" and throwing on a punitive block simply because that's how they behave. Either I speak generally about how the system works and is set up in practice with policies that have been tweaked to be completely tilted over the years by just such False Flag behavior as they did to me, or you want someone to spend their time looking for specific examples, but specific examples (like LessHeard VanU's abusive "default 31 hour" blocking procedures, which he has already said he has no intention of giving up) will naturally require naming names.

Now, if you believe this threat list is any help, if you really believe the argument that "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," you really need to rethink yourself, especially since it was LessHeard who placed it. Every other project in the same scope as yours previously was derailed either by direct abusive action, or by co-opting it and twisting it into uselessness, and since a sizable majority of your "contributors" are themselves administrators and they're doing their level best to keep anyone else out who's willing to actually give your proposal the teeth it needs to work, you are already 9/10 of the way down that path. Take a look, such as when Wikipedia:Admin recall was torpedoed and then Wikipedia:Administrator recall got the corrupt arbcom added as a further bureaucracy blocking step before it was again torpedoed anyways. Wikipedia:Adminship_renewal was killed for the same reason; it would have helped weed out the bad ones, the "sleeper admin" POV-clique protectors, and so forth. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

QuisCustodio, your unhappiness is clear. You don't need to repeat yourself. It doesn't matter if 100% of admins acts badly, or if 0.01% of them acts badly. AdminReview is an attempt at improving bad administration where it occurs. You go to a lot of effort to predict our impending doom. We can't work with non-specific phrases like "you really need to rethink yourself". Frankly, I think you are being unfair to suggest that other people should fix the world for you. You have a chance to influence the process if you can make yourself understood. Right now, all I understand is that you are unhappy, think we are all doomed, and you are losing your audience. Try to shorten your contributions and offer an active positive suggestion for the future process. Lightmouse (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please.

We can't work with non-specific phrases like "you really need to rethink yourself". That was directed squarely at the LessHeard-started "scare list" and the fact that Tony has let it sit, as well as Tony's credulousness with administrators in general. Were I to WP:AGF and apply Hanlon's Razor I would be forced to conclude that you are reading what I write and really not getting it; otherwise, I would be inclined to believe you are being deliberately obtuse and pulling things out of context to irritate me.

You have a chance to influence the process if you can make yourself understood. Funny, all I've gotten is abuse in return and the direct statement from at least one administrator that I am being persecuted in this way because of my views. Anyone else who stood up for me got threats and abuse as well. Given the sheer wikilawyering, and the nonsense about claiming that I should have "no fear" of posting from my own account even as they're engaging in hunting activity trying to find me, I am 100% justified, but that still leaves me (not to mention anyone else who might have wanted to contribute coming back to Wikipedia) now blocked off from contributing thanks to their False Flag (not to mention incredibly poor) impersonation of me and subsequent page-protection racket. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your first instinct is right 'I am reading what you write and really not getting it'. You have just posted another complaint about how awful your world is. Please try and contribute something other than complaints. Do you have an active positive suggestion for the future process? Lightmouse (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the inherent danger of the number of admins who are now stalking the renamed AdminReview for the purposes of harassment, intimidation, outright threats, and the enforcement of groupthink. The difference between a toothless proposal (which this currently has been twisted into) and no proposal at all, is very, very small. Start with the FAQ, "Complaints that have even the appearance of vexatiousness will be removed promptly. Countdown to an admin-coordinator (or just an admin themselves) removing legitimate complaints and then blocking the complainer for "disruption" in 3...2...1... WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your use of the word "stalker" is inflammatory, and your apparent ability to foretell the future "... for the purposes of harassment, intimidation, outright threats, and the enforcement of groupthink" is little less than astonishing. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of administrators do as good a job as they can, and that most of them would be just as happy as anyone else to see the few bad apples rooted out. And believe me, I have no reason to be soft on administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment, intimidation, outright threats, and enforcement of groupthink have already occurred.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of administrators do as good a job as they can, and that most of them would be just as happy as anyone else to see the few bad apples rooted out.

I, on the other hand, have witnessed the few good apples leave wikipedia already because they judged it impossible to reform the system even with the powers of an administrator. My "apparent ability to tell the future" is a mere knowledge of the past, and the fact that those who are unaware of the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend more towards George Bernard Shaw's view on the matter: "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." Also, perhaps unlike you, I do not share the view that there are no good apples left in the barrel. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are any good apples left in the barrel, they're not speaking here or on User talk:Tony1/AdminReview. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Quite a lot, and paradoxically nothing, seems to have happened while I slept. We are told to 'watch out for the reds under our beds', yet there is nothing new nor concrete. Sure, we will take a look at the various initiatives which have been derailed and hopefully we will learn something. You (WW,QuisCustodio) seem to be well-educated, very conversant with the way WP works, you infer that all the admins who have had their names listed as watching AdminReview as corrupt, yet you offer sod-all evidence as to their [individual] wrongdoing. You appear to be completely paranoid - you may have good reason to be, but again, would you kindly put up or shut up. Yawn. I am sure you have heard of McCarthyism. I am quite tempted to blank this section out as completely unconstructive, and verging on the disruption or harrassment. Tony has offered his ears, and you are not only downright sceptical, but bordering on insulting him. If you are so distrustful of Tony, I really don't know what you are doing here. I suggest you took your complaints elsewhere, because you have exhausted your share of vested credibility, and our indulgence, IMHO. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, I'm starting to yawn deeply. I've gone out of my way to accommodate your right to a voice, but I'm desperate for more succinct, positive entries. We're all tiring of the constant accusations and conspiracy theories (perhaps you are an admin in disguise, trying to derail our AdminReview process? Ahem ....). Tony (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• The thought of an agent provocateur had crossed my mind. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Here's a starter list of succinct problems I have with the current version and the talkpage.

1. - I do not find the "list of admins watching this page" created by LessHeard to be helpful. On the contrary, I believe it to function as a coercive scare-tactic to keep people away. It will function in two manners; first, to tell abused users whether or not they can expect retaliation (should the admin or his friends' names appear), second, it gives a list of names that an abused user will likely consider all to be on "friendly" terms with most or all of the coordinators. Even if the administrators don't mean it this way, that is how many users trying to find a place to get a fair hearing (especially if reaching AR only after being abused elsewhere) are going to see it.
2. - Complaints that have even the appearance of vexatiousness will be removed promptly. - This much resembles the common WP:ANI line, and over at WP:ANI any complaint about an admin at all (no matter how well founded), save for those filed by other equally-connected admins, ever is viewed as anything other than "vexatious." Lacking a guideline on what a so-called "vexatious" complaint is, this becomes a clause to be abused at will.
3. - AdminReview may decline to take on a case, with or without the provision of a reason for its decision. - A reason should always be given. Part of the problem with abusive administrators is that their abuse often comes with either directly misleading, unhelpful, or nonexistent communications. I know several who, prior to the WP:BADSITES debacle, actually taunted blocked users to "go complain on wikipediareview.com they like your types there." Failing to communicate why a case was refused gives no input to the filing user as to what is going on or how they could improve their case for refiling. This is counter to the principle that AdminReview is supposed to be about "communication."
4. - Relevant policy pages - This section needs to more clearly delineate the difference between actual policy pages, and mere essays. Far too many people treat "essays" as having the force of policy.
5. - Likewise, for purposes of these procedures, any policy reference and decision needs to be made on the basis of the policy as it was written at the time of the user action(s) the admin claims as policy-based reason for the block; there are plenty of examples in the past in which an admin unilaterally changed a policy (adding/removing something to the policy page), and then issued a block based on their new change.
6. - Comment from Laizulasher: "In Lazulilasher's dream Wikipedia: a process is created which is chaired jointly by administrators and regular editors. Given that I (and most petitioners I will suspect) have absolutely no trust in any administrator, because administrators fall far too high on the "power" scale and of course, absolute power corrupts absolutely, I do not feel comfortable with much involvement of administrators as coordinators at all, much less 50% or higher involvement. He/she states "I would feel more secure in judgments rendered by an impartial board with access to the highest possible amount of information", and I submit that given the "godlike" power granted currently to administrators (analogous quite easily to "the power over who lives and who dies"), no board featuring admins in a heavy role will ever be "impartial" in dealing with other administrators.
7. - "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.'' - Followup notes: first, not only do "blocks" remain on record permanently, administrators make a practice of "unblocking to lengthen" or "unblocking to shorten", and then considering the reblock as a new block when counting up the user's number of blocks for the scarlet letter harassment technique. I've seen editors leave the project because they'd only had two "blocks", but were given ten "blocks" on record (with an accompanying eight "unblock to modify" insertions), and nobody would ever take them seriously again because they were now "a user with ten blocks in a month." How is this to be addressed? IS there some method within the wikipedia system to address this that users can actually be steered to, or not?
8. - Are there basic standards that AdminReview insists on as supported by policy, or not? For example, WP:BLOCK lists the following notations:

1. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgement, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent review if requested. - as if.
2. Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked. - usually an unreadable template or worse. Templating a comment field is particularly nonsensical, but excessively common.
3. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. - see above.
4. incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations; -- as per earlier discussion, many administrators already completely disregard this one and implement much longer blocks than necessary. Would a complaint about this be "vexatious"?

How do we go about dealing with administrators who completely disregard policy on these points, to name just a few? What about administrators who insist (one of whom has already insisted so on AR's very talk page) on continuing non-policy abuse?
9. - Users are regularly admonished to avoid wikilawyering, often even blocked for "disruptious wikilawyering" by vexatious administrators. How, in this process, are both sides to be held to the same standard for that? A common response on WP:ANI is that a user is being "vexatious" pointing out that something wasn't done according to policy, with things like WP:IAR or "the spirit of the policy", or even the old saw of "well we give administrators wide latitude so just suck it up." How do you intend to avoid this kind of problem (which makes it obvious to abused users that they're not being heard in anything resembling a fair manner)?
10. - Wording limits on filings are counterproductive. Some people are more verbose than others. Some disputes are going to take more time and description (how many diffs? how many instances of problem behavior to list?) than others. I would really hate to see an otherwise valid case rejected merely because someone needed 300 words to state their case.

Well? There's some starter points. Your response? WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also: Stage 3 will decide and write judgement on simple majority. A 'hung' verdict will go in favour of the Admin. - This should be reversed: a 3v3 tie between 6 coordinators should be a vindication for the editor that the administrator's action was not justifiable by review of policy. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Now, we appear to be going somewhere. I will not address all of your points, but would offer my personal view on certain points only:

• 1/I cannot help your feeling intimidated by it: your cup is half empty whilst mine is half full. You already see the process being corrupted by their involvement; I see the list as an indication of support of some admins, which we need in order for the project to be seen to be fair.
• 2/ Vexatious complaints - you must not dismiss the possibility that vexatious complaints will ever be completely eliminated. The mechanism, therefore, is an important one which balances the prima facie qualities of a case and the administrative burden. I have a feeling that having a guideline of what constitutes "vexatiousness" is just bureaucracy, and would get the process bogged down on technicalities and Wikilawyering.
• 3/ I do take your point. It is a "we reserve the right to.. " sort of clause, but I fully imagine that, in practice, a reason will be given for declining a case, however, it may not be as detailed as you may like.
• 4/ Not within the scope of this to define or delineate policy areas. However, I have sorted the list and removed the essays.
• 6/ Depends on what you might call "heavy role". You will note that the composition of the 'board' will be skewed towards non-admins. If you want them not to have a role at all, it's likely to be a deal-breaker, IMHO. I do not believe this project is some exercise of people power. For it to work, the whole community must work together, so we cannot have admins (as a group) disenfranchised.
• 8/ Then it would be patently obvious, and the coordinators are likely to find against the admin in question.
• 9/ the process would rely on fact and not arguments
• 10/ Nobody's going to stop reading when the wordcount gets to 300, but I do not expect case-handlers to have to wade through War and Peace, The Iliad, or The Odyssey to gain a basic understanding as to the complaints.
• Stage 3: the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence are fundamental tenets of justice. Also, the full panel may not always be an even number. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Response by Tony1:

• (1) Stop the paranoia, please. While I'm not familiar with some of the names, those I know are fine people. Moni3 is highly respected at FAC, and something of a language guru. Black Kite does tremendous work protecting WP's pillar concerning reproducibility, specifically as it concerns our WP:NFC policy—I mean, highly skilled work that would do a top attorney proud. These are just two examples. I'm pleased that ?12 admins have come forward, some of them explicitly to support the page. What are you talking about?
• (2) I will tone down the wording to "Complaints that appear to be vexatious will be removed promptly". Filtering out unreasonable complaints is one of the challenges of the new system, and the demands of natural justice ("everyone is entitled to a hearing" and "justice must be not merely done, but seen to be done") must be balanced against the need to be fair to admins, who can easily be unreasonably accused, and of a system that might otherwise be swamped.
• (3) OK, I'll change it, but I don't want to impose unreasonable procedural burdens on coordinators by having to respond to every nuisance complaint.
• (4) I agree; Ohconfucius has changed the wording.
• (5) I agree; it's a finnicky point, but probably worth adding. Indeed, I foresee that policy will change more often in response to a proper process of review.
• (6) Ohconfucius says it all.
• (7) I do believe that the block log system needs a process of review and appeal, although it is not currently within the scope of AdminReview. Give the system a chance to evolve and gain acceptance; then we might see about recommending further changes. First things first. AdminReview is already a major step, even though no one is claiming that it will achieve its goals fully or immediately.
• (8) "The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgement, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent review if requested." AdminReview will inevitably be called on to provide such independent review, although not retrospectively. As for the other clauses you cite, I think these need to be codified and referenced in the "Specific policy requirements" on the AdminReview page. Remember that the whole process is about gaining trust—of non-admins, admins, and the community as a whole. Please stop throwing around the word "abuse" quite so often; it's unhelpful. Moderate language is more effective in this context.
• (9) See Ohconfucius's response.
• (10) And huge, verbose statements are also counterproductive; this is one of the problems in other WP processes, and it causes backlogs, tardiness, and makes processes less accessible to many users. It is a useful exercise to self-edit a statement down to a word limit: the result is usually more persuasive. I make no apologies for allowing coordinators to edit down statements and rejoinders if they contain irrelevant fluff. It's called helping users to be relevant, and serves the narrow legalistic judicial framework that underlies AdminReview. That framework is there to protect all parties, as much as some people will inevitably criticise it as being bureaucratic bloat. However, I'll consider writing in some wriggle-room on the word limits. Tony (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. -"Stop the paranoia, please." - after everything you've seen me put through, including the bad-faith and poor impersonation of me in someone's lame False Flag operation, you call me "paranoid"? Right back at you, "What are you talking about?" Similarly, Black Kite's involvement/work on WP:NFC has no bearing on his ability (or from my perspective, lack of same) to be an honest admin. I also take it very seriously that the very person who declared his intent to continue issuing extra-long "default" blocks, deliberately flouting the blocking policy as notated above is the one who started the Threat List.
2. -must be balanced against the need to be fair to admins, who can easily be unreasonably accused,, as opposed to normal editors who not only can (and regularly are) unreasonably accused, but then unreasonably abused because they are seen as peons or worse and lack any power to fight back.
3. -If they think it's a nuisance complaint, it should be simple enough to point out a diff or two and say "we do not believe this case should be taken."
4. -I had no objection to essays being listed (they do offer at least a perspective on how some policies might be read). I simply did not like seeing them listed as policy rather than as essays. I'd rather when Ohconfucious had sorted the list, he'd done a sort and placed them in a "relevant essays" section. I'd do it myself, but thanks to the bad-faith False Flag protection of the page, I still can't directly edit it.
5. -It's not a "finicky point." Protection of users from ex post facto "policy changes" is important.
6. -"You will note that the composition of the 'board' will be skewed towards non-admins." - hardly, as the discussion from several admins on the page (now that they've half-locked the discussion) keeps wanting to push more and more admins into the coordinator circle.
8. -"Please stop throwing around the word "abuse" quite so often; it's unhelpful." To paraphrase one of the most nonsensical phrases bad admins love to use, "if you don't like being called abusive, don't be abusive."
9. -I can hardly believe this would be the case. Where policy is involved, "interpretation" of policy is involved. Admins love to wikilawyer while simultaneously yelling at others for "wikilawyering" in response.
10. -Editing down is one thing and I have no objection to it; rejecting a request because someone's writing style is more verbose than another's is where the "hard limit" caps make for bad policy. I'm glad to see you are willing to soften this policy.
WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stage 3's pro-admin bias and the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence are fundamental tenets of justice. If admins collectively ever followed these, AdminReview wouldn't be needed in the first place. Presume the person not in a position to be corrupted by power is innocent for once. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

to your points:

• 1/ Use of terms such as "Threat list" is extremely unhelpful and is an extension of your paranoia. We part company there, please don't keep bringing it back.
• 4/ I will put the essays back under its own heading.
• 5/ I am firmly of the school which believes that laws should not apply retroactively. However, I also believe that loopholes should be plugged as soon as practicable. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic question

Fine, here's a basic question for you: who is to receive the benefit of the doubt in these proceedings? I say that if the admin gets "the benefit of the doubt", then this will quickly devolve into a WP:ANI-like situation where "the benefit of the doubt" justifies incivil behavior or worse, and it will accomplish nothing. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If we were talking about an outcome of 3:3, split along user/admin lines, then I would tend to agree. However, I have proposed that the decision mechanism will always have an in-built majority of non-admins as a safeguard. That being the case, I fail to see how it "justifies incivil behavior or worse", and would say without hesitation that that is where the benefit of doubt should lie, per my comments above. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New point

From the newly-worded FAQ: "May I complain about past incidents? No; only admin actions or behaviour on or after [start date] may be the subject of a complaint. Complaints may only be lodged on actions which took place within [2] weeks of the date of filing"

I suggest that this be amended to read "Complaints may be lodged on actions which took place within [2] weeks prior to the date of filing, or within [2] weeks after the expiration of a questioned block." Users permablocked will have as their "only" option communicating via email, but it's certainly possible that other users either won't feel comfortable communicating via email, or otherwise may decide to simply wait out their block; letting them file 2 weeks after expiration (giving a full "2 week" time from the end of the admin action, given that blocking has a timeframe while other admin actions are "instantaneous") is only fair. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

• I think the texas page needs a lot of pretty obvious Strunk and White style tightening and a couple places need better logic in the statement.
• I found the Autism page hard to read and not engaging. Some imprecise complaints and discussion here. It's obvious that the editors care about the page a lot and put a lot of work into it, but imho are not making it reader friendly. Please take a look, see what you think and advise on that page: Talk:Autism#poor writing style. TCO (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These are both pretty long articles. I don't normally copy-edit. I'll have a quick look at both. Tony (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No sweat, but then a comment like I see what you mean or you are out to lunch would still be helpful. TCO (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AdminScourge

Tony, I've stickybeaked into the first part of your AdminPersecute page; hope I haven't fcuked anything up, but anyway do please look carefully at what I've perpetrated.

And now, off to bed. IFF my fiddling was, on balance, for the better, then I'll continue it within the next couple of days. -- Hoary (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would say the changes were for the better. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Methinks Hoary is in a different time-zone at the moment. Ohconfucius, we need to sort out the individual vs group approach to judgements, here. Tony (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Go Man Go

Hey there, Tony, I'm having a discussion with someone about the capitalization of Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse as the names of breeds. When you did some copyediting on Easy Jet, you left them in upper case, and that's always been my understanding, also. Would you mind weighing in? GMG's going on the main page on Wed, so I'd appreciate it being in the best shape it can be! First horse article on the main page, ever! Whee! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Coenred copyedit

Tony, per your request at the Coenred FAC, qp10qp has done a copyedit on the article. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for not trashing me in the RFC. It is quite clear that if I remain, I will no longer be allowed to participate in FAC. However, I have enjoyed seeing your professional work and attitude. And I wish you the best. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sunderland A.F.C. FAC

Hi there, cheers a lot for your review of the Sunderland A.F.C. FAC. I think your comments raised have now been addressed, and if you could have another look over it, that would be great. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Tony, I replied to you here. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Food for Admin Watch

Tony. This “admin” needs to be watched… carefully: ANI over censorship. And more childish, confrontational crap here on WT:MOSNUM. Is this suitable for a test case? I doubt he will create more problems, but I can tell that if I hadn’t have been very proactive, he would have spiraled out of control. Greg L (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I’m not going to let Ryoung122 get by with his stupid little post. The principle here (censorship) is too important and I’m not about to laugh it off with “oh well, we just got a little hot”. See the ANI for the latest entertainment and your viewing pleasure. Greg L (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Has everything changed?

Has everything gone weird on Wikipeida i.e. the headings are no longer bold and the font's changed, or have I bugged up my options some how? Ryan4314 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah it's fixed now, should've removed this message. Turns out Firefox has some sillyness, where you can shrink the text just by using the mouse lol! Ryan4314 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispatch thanks

Thank you, Tony. [1] Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge of WP:CONTEXT, WP:BUILD, and MOSLINK

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)/merged and its corresponding talk page. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the usual crowd seems to be getting more anxious by the minute. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've requested arbitration over this date delinking situation and the conduct of those involved. You are named as a party. Please see here. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)