User talk:Tony1

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Threats from editor. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. My report is here: Threats from editor. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z7

OK, I'm retiring from Wikipedia. Tony (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will unblock you immediately if you retract the threat - no harm done, but what you said here constitutes a legal threat. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I've looked quickly through Tony's contribs, and nothing is jumping out that could have caused this. Can you explain? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin - I feel the diff above (and explained at the ANI) constitutes a legal threat. Let me know if you disagree; I'll be happy to hear you (and anyone else) out. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I've left a note there. That wasn't a legal threat. Please unblock asap with a note in the log that it was a misunderstanding. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Obviously not a legal threat; it's a reference (albeit not phrased in an "I'd better cover my ass and make sure not to use any humour that a banhammer Judge Dredd admin might willfully misinterpret" way) to the annoyingly legalistic bureaucracy of noticeboards and other WP:DRAMA. Pretty ironic that it's turned into yet more drama because people act on assumptions instead of asking questions, or just using some common sense. It wasn't actually possible for that to have been a legal threat, since there is no law or legal process that can be invoked about revertwarring on Wikipedia. Hint: It's a credible legal threat when someone claims defamation/libel/slander, harassment, or something else there's a law about and indicates they're going to take some kind of off-WP action about it involving laws, lawyers, courts, police, regulatory agencies, etc. There's not a single one of those things that has or will ever have anything to do with someone removing appropriate links to football clubs. For fuck's sake. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Didn't realize the thread below was about this, too. But, yes, the key policy point is "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." Ergo, bad block. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify or explain?

Hi Tony1 - can you please clarify or explain what you meant when you said, "Then it becomes a legal issue" in your statement here? If you didn't intend this to be a legal threat, I'd like to know so that I can unblock you. Please let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal issue" meaning I'll take him to ANI, you idiot. Tony (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tone it down. "Legal issue" is pretty clear, so perhaps in the future pick a different word. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 03:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Your account is now unblocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable interpretation: more than an actual legal threat would be. Jonathunder (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not "tone it down". How incompetent of this so-called admin to shoot first then ask questions later. Is that what you call good adminning? He should resign. And what about the smear in my block log? How dare he. Tony (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly understandable that you're upset right now. Oshwah is a relatively new but well-meaning admin. He did unblock you and note the log that this was not a legal threat. Jonathunder (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. Tony (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"It will be a legal issue" does not mean to a reasonable person (reasonable in the legal meaning of the term) "I will take you to ANI". "I will take you to ANI" does. Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats. Also, I'd highly suggest you take a step back from Wikipedia, have a cup of your beverage of choice, and allow yourself to calm down before further posting. Lashing out is an understandable reaction from your perspective but will only make things worse in the long run (and, honestly, having seen the comments that started this kerfuffle probably should have been done before making those, but water under the bridge is water under the bridge). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that can only inflame the situation. Get away from this page. Tony (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, thank you for the clarification! Although I disagreed strongly with the block, it was purely procedural, and I ask for your understanding. I have yet to have the honor to interact with you, but I need to say your work here is very much admired. Thank you! And I will go away too, sorry to disturb. Alex Shih (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That kind of shoot-first procedure deserves a desysopping. I'm not going to waste my time working on WP any more after this. Tony (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I respectfully disagree. I wish you well. Alex Shih (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I'd have interpreted it the same way that Oshwah did. I don't normally hear folks referring to disputes that should go to ANI as "legal issues". Just my 2¢, and I don't think Oshwah is an "idiot" for seeing it that way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most unwelcome input. You just don't get the point, do you. The most basic rule of adminning is to communicate with editors where there's doubt—especially editors who have been active for 12 years and have 150,000 edits and a long track-record of service in many forums, and especially when the action is to permanently block. Clearly there was doubt here, and if it wasn't perceived, that's dangerously incompetent. GorillaWarfare, are you really so bone-headed as to consider "I will revert again if you revert. Then it becomes a legal issue" as meaning I'll go to my lawyer? You need your head examined.

So this is a prime instance of gung-ho, bloody-minded admin action—shoot first, ask later—which very quickly damages Wikipedia. I don't want admins like this prowling around with their ignorant adolescent finger on the trigger. I won't contribute under those circumstances. Tony (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think interpreting "Then it becomes a legal issue" as a legal threat is a stretch at all. As for your prescription of a head examination, thank you so much for your unsolicited diagnosis but I get my head examined once a week and have still managed to agree with Oshwah that on the face of it, this is a legal threat. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You STILL don't get it. And you're wasting my time, too. The gun-toting child Oshwah needed to communicate before acting in such a damaging way. Idiots. Tony (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, I just don't agree with you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird logic. Stop wasting my time. Tony (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see any way those words could be interpreted as a legal threat in the context of reverts of reverts. I hope someone will help talk Tony into coming back instead of retiring. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a fairly egregious block. Motivating an editor who's contributed so much to the content side of Wikipedia to retire forever isn't something that should be taken lightly. I sincerely hope Tony hasn't actually been driven into permanent retirement. ceranthor 06:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere, I didn't interpret it as a legal threat but obviously some others' views differ. I highly doubt continuing this discussion is going to yield anything useful and recommend closing it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not closing it down. This is an instance of destructive adminning (which incidentally breaches the admin policy). I'm appalled that GorillaWarfare is endorsing this admin's appalling action—instead of saying "yes, he should have taken a minute to communicate with you, rather than taking the hysterical post of that complainant at face value and blown everything apart in the space of a few minutes". Then we might make some progress. Is Gorilla still an arbitrator? If so, we can have no confidence in arbcom, encouraging bad admin practice. Tony (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they should have communicated with you first. The relevant policy section is this: Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention. Its probably of limited consolation that there are often overreactions with this policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Euryalus doesn't mind that bolded the key text in his/her post above. E Eng 08:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no!!! Please don't retire, Tony!! Surely there's a way mistaken/questionable blocks can be redacted?? Several years ago, I was wrongfully accused of "(Posting personal information)" and was blocked/then unblocked after my innocence was proven (which is not how it's supposed to work), and later tried to get it removed from my block log but was told it could not be redacted. I'm sure other editors have experienced the same so maybe this would be a good opportunity to fix that problem - it certainly is worth the effort if it means keeping Tony on board - he's one of our most proficient editors! ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a questionable block and it shouldn't be redacted; it was an unambiguous legal threat — the sort of thing a noobie might be excused for spouting but about which no veteran Wikipedian should have the slightest lack of clarity. You just don't go rattling "legal" sabers at WP over content disputes, ever. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Tell me, Carrite, where NLT says Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention -- that figures in your analysis how? E Eng 17:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the part that I would make bold — the opening line of the policy section... It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. — If that had been adhered to by a veteran editor who knows better, none of the after the fact drama and handwringing would have happened. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Look at the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2; it was clearly a trigger-happy block, which could have been evaded by a quick note to Tony that would have clarified the situation. ceranthor 17:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Oshwah's defense, he was following the bad example set almost universally in so-called legal-threat situations, which is to treat any post containing any word found in Black's Law Dictionary as grounds for an ask-questions-later block. "This could be libelous" -- block! "This isn't legal html" -- block! Really, it's ridiculous. Everyone acts like any perceived legal threat is an outbreak of smallpox requiring scorched earth. In fact it's no different from anything else potentially disruptive: don't panic, clarify what's going on, then act if needed. The urgency is imaginary. But Oshway, since you're at the center of this, I suggest you take the lead in helping reform this bad practice among your fellow admins. E Eng 21:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good start would be to send perceived legal threats somewhere like AN, so there wasn't that standard ANI temptation to zap them on sight. There's never a second by second rush to resolve a perceived legal threat, so a more deliberative noticeboard would be a good idea. Will propose this as a policy change. Other suggestions welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea (though others knowing more about the ways of adminship should, as you say, contribute other good ideas). Now we're getting somewhere in having something positive come out of this mess. E Eng 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad form to "template the regulars", but {{subst:Uw-legal}} on this talk page would have been better than a block with no warning. I think it's a real stretch to interpret that as a threat of "off-wiki" action. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought this was a shop floor and we were supposed to put up with all kinds of rough talk. But someone misinterprets a sentence as a legal threat so we all have to sing Kumbaya now. Gamaliel (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a pot-shot in my direction: all I'm saying is that Mr. Calls Everyone Else An Idiot should have known better than to use the L-word in an edit summary and he's only got himself to blame for getting rung up by a frisky traffic cop. And no, there shouldn't be special favors in suppression of block logs granted to special people. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme, block logs are editable, but policy has always been that we never do edit them as they serve as a record of the blocking admin as well as the blocked editor, and editing them would destroy the evidence were anyone to try to build a case against the admin for taking bad decisions. IIRC (although I may not RC) this policy comes from the WMF rather than community consensus, so isn't changeable. ‑ Iridescent 17:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brion commented on this, presumably this is what Iridescent remembers. There was a request to allow annotation or redaction of block logs last year that did not get enough support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing block logs is a bad idea. It limits the ability of third parties to document longterm issues of poor admin judgement, and encourages admins to quietly whitewash their own histories or those of friends. Erroneous blocks are easily explained by pointing to the subsequent unblock, or by diffs showing the discussion that followed; there's no need to make permanent holes in the record. Plus it's only a block log. Even User:Jimbo Wales has one. Anyone seeking to form an overall impression of an editor should know to look more broadly than that single page. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Regardless of what was discussed, it's certainly technically possible to wipe block log entries (e.g. here is an unblock of the long-suffering User:ThisIsaTest with no corresponding block, because I oversighted the block but not the unblock in order to see what the log would look like in these circumstances). Any admin can rewrite history; just go to Special:Log, pick any entry, tick the tiny check-box next to it and select the "change visibility of selected log entry" button and try it for yourself (be sure to undo your action afterwards!). The issue isn't whether it's possible, it's whether there are any but the most exceptional circumstances in which this particular power should be used. ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, I don't see you in the list of oversighters. How were you able to pull off that trick?

"Deleted log events will still appear in the logs, but parts of their content will be inaccessible to the public. Other administrators will still be able to access the hidden content and to undelete it, unless additional restrictions are set."

As another admin, I can't even find that block in order to try to un-delete it. There's nothing in the log history indicating any visibility change. wbm1058 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see it because you're not an oversighter. The entire point of OS is that the revisions are only visible to other OSers and not to admins. If Euryalus is still watching, he can confirm that the block existed as the immediately prior revision. ‑ Iridescent 21:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) I see the confusion—I used to be CU/OS until late 2011, but for some reason neither my being granted the permissions nor them being removed shows in my user rights log. I have no idea why that is. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Mystery solved, CU and OS are granted and removed centrally so the log is on Meta. ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So then, "Any ~~admin~~ oversighter can rewrite history; just go to Special:Log, pick any entry,..." – wbm1058 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, once it's blown up like this incident has, it's hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube... wbm1058 (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can rewrite history for those with fewer permissions; if you select "delete action and target" the entry will vanish from the logs for normal editors but not admins, if OSers do it it will vanish for ordinary editors and admins but not OSers, and if the WMF do it (which is never done) it will be invisible to everyone. ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, when a block log entry is redacted entirely (as in username, action and summary all removed) it shows up as struck out for admins and disappears for non-admins altogether. There was a discussion last year to allow admins to redact erroneous blocks from block logs that had little input and no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For many years, block logs could not be edited (the best one could do to remove a bad block was to write "that was a bad block" in the unblock summary, or in a subsequent pro forma one-second block). (This was a huge problem in a major incident that a few of the longest-timers here will remember from 2006, which is where I came in.) changed a couple of years ago but I didn't realize it until recently. I am not sure how widely it is known as if it were common knowledge, I would expect a far greater percentage of unblock requests to be "unblock and redact" requests. I'm not sure that this block meets the standard for the log equivalent of rev-delete or oversight.

I opined no on AN yesterday, and repeat, that in a situation where an editor's intent behind an ill-tempered reference to the law or lawyers or legalities is unclear, a word with the editor will often be superior to a block. The paragraph of the policy that everyone is quoting—advising editors against using "legal-threat-like" wording, but reminding administrators that it's easy to mistake a faux "legal threat" for a real one—deserves far more attention than it receives. But then again I would say that, having written the paragraph myself, following an arb case that raised this precise issue. If anyone has any suggestions for improving the policy wording to make it more clear or more prominent, I would welcome it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(What does "I opined no AN yesterday" mean, exactly?) Well, Newyorkbrad, you could put the bit about clarifying before blocking in bold [1] but then someone might come along and call that "tendentious" [2]. E Eng 01:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: That was a typo for "on AN"; now fixed, thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A legal threat should be limited to actual threats of legal action...terms like, take you to court, or going to sue you...you know, threats. If an editor expresses concern over an edit to a BLP, for example, because it's contentious enough to create a "legal issue", saying so is not a legal threat - it's concern. Several years ago, I was accused of violating NLT when I expressed my concern that certain edits to a BLP violated policy. I brought it up on the TP, stating that contentious labels in the lede could be considered libellous and should not be used. Our BLP TP template even states: ...removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. My comment was not a legal threat - it was concern for the project. If an editor warns me to not add material or revert because it will create a legal issue, the first thing I'm going to do is ask that editor why. I'm not going to run to ANI with accusations of NLT. As for changing policy - I would not object to removing "perceived threat" from the policy - it's problematic and creates more issues than it avoids. Raise the threat threshold so we aren't skirting around censorship and obstructing one's ability to express oneself. We're human despite the multiple layers of technology that distance us from one another, the latter of which adds a layer or two of being cold and impersonal, not to mention anonymity which tends to embolden bad behavior toward others if an editor is so inclined - but we have civility policies in place to handle such issues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Way back to answer Newyorkbrad‘s inquiry, the current criteria for log redaction (aside from overusing emphasis) say that log redaction is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters which this block prolly does not meet. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Young Tony, please not go far; come take... uh... [a little uncertainly] short atheist spiritual retreat..? in Bishzilla pocket, then return refreshed! Deplore silliness of block without consultation; sadly is not first and surely will not be last pointless NLT block based on over-literal reading. Unusual to apply to such senior editor as Tony, though. [Bishzilla is a senior editor herself, and realizes anything she says may be used against her, too. Hastily:] Note, invitation to pocket not intended as legal threat! Pocket is not prison! Catflap available for free egress! bishzilla _ROARR!! 09:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It a bit weird, but I urge you to avail yourself of the opportunity, Tony. E Eng 10:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Struck by another thought]: feel free bring nice dog! bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Fuck 'em

Tony, for what it's worth, this kind of abjectly stupid behaviour from those who are supposedly "guarding" Wikipedia has become endemic. This propensity to "block first, talk later" has become a genuine issue and has caused endless damage to the project. I'd hate to see you leave but I certainly wouldn't blame you. Your payback for your epic catalogue of content contributions is a pathetic, misjudged block, and some here are still wondering why the project is in decline. Good luck Tony, I'll miss you very much. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One inexperienced admin's hasty action isn't Tony's "payback" for all his work here any more than my being arrested by some asshole cop 30 years ago was my payback for my years of active civic participation. (And the judge scolding both the officer and the prosecutor in open court made it all worth it.) Anyway, being blocked's no big deal, as you and I both know. I suggest Tony proudly display this userbox --

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it – (admire my block log here!).

-- and join the rest of us back in the saltmines. E Eng 22:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bing! Bing! Bing — Correct solution. Carrite (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are stackable

Stackable WTF blocks	You are the recipient of a WTF Block
	Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're a mature adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know this probably won't change anything...

Hi Tony1. I wanted to leave you a message regarding what happened at ANI yesterday and to try to at least do my part to bring healing to the situation. The ANI resulted in a significant amount of different responses, feedback, thoughts, interpretations, input, and opinions regarding the message that was at the center of the discussion, as well as how I handled the situation. While the feedback is diverse in regards to whether or not the message you left could or should have been interpreted as a legal threat or not, I do agree with the feedback left by others that the situation would have been much better handled if I had messaged you and asked for clarification regarding the statement first instead of blocking your account until the clarification was received. If I could turn back time, this is what I would have done instead - it makes much more sense and it's the better (and right) thing to do.

I am sorry that this situation had to happen, and I'm sorry that my actions handling it were not optimal. I should have messaged you for clarification first, and not have blocked your account before hearing anything back from you. It's unfortunate and shouldn't have happened. In my experience, this is how I've seen others handle the situation, and based off of that experience I believed that to be the correct and justified way of handling perceived legal threats. Don't get me wrong; I am not trying to blame my actions on the past actions of others, nor am I trying to offer any excuse for what happened. I made the decision to block your account, and I am responsible for that decision. Period.

I know that you're upset, and I feel that you have the right to be upset. I want you to know that I've taken this ANI, the feedback that others have left me, and the input from the community - to heart, and very greatly so. I care about every user I interact with, I care about how I am seen as an administrator, an editor, and a person on this project, and I strive to my very best to try and keep the peace, and be seen as an example of a trusted, civil, competent, knowledgeable, and positive administrator on the project. I am not perfect, and I will never be perfect. But I always do my best to learn from the experience and the mistakes I make and take the feedback to heart. I have received excellent feedback from my peers and other experienced editors and how to better handle this situation in the future, and I promise to move forward with it, to apply it, and to honor it.

I know that this message probably won't make anything better here, but I just wanted to message you because I feel that you deserved one from me, and that you should hear these words. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have you desysopped on the basis that admins are not allowed to apologize or admit they made a mistake. This could start a dangerous trend. E Eng 23:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have you desysopped because this isn't the first time you've made such a rash move and clearly you're not to be trusted with the tools. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for, RM. Oshwah has recognized his mistake and is trying to set things right. That's the sort of admin we need. E Eng 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the point where this is by no means the first time this kind of rash behaviour has taken place. I would suggest Oshwah subject himself to a reconfirmation RFA, just as Harrias has had the guts to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a way for Tony1 to feel he can continue editing; you're out for blood. As you know, I've been blocked by some of the biggest blockhead admins we have, but I don't call for their blockheads to be lopped off, because in each case they seem to have learned their lesson. A chastened admin is a better admin. E Eng 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry EEng, Tony and I have spoken outside this joke of a forum, you don't need to worry about that. Feel free to dance around the issues though. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to deflate your specialness, but Tony's spoken to me offwiki too. Tony1, you two-timing cad! <slap!> E Eng 23:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be a dick, it's nothing to do with being special. Your approach is different from mine, you apologise for these incompetent admins who make the same mistakes time after time after time, and then you claim it to be "calling for blood" when they're actually called out. I disagree. Time we started fixing these problems rather than just slow-hand-clapping and saying, oh "precious", he did say "sorry" after all, what a "special" admin. Bollocks, let's see if he has the balls for recall. I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore him, Oshwah. E Eng 23:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually kinda agree with both of you. Yes, admins realizing and owning up to mistakes is a great admin trait, and we should be most concerned with admins who refuse to do this (e.g., see the two admins who have most been a thorn in my own side – neither have ever admitted any error when called on ther ban-happy bullshit). However, a) just admitting the error doesn't magically excuse it, and b) last I looked the block log has not been corrected with a new entry indicating that the block was in error. Ergo, from my perspective, this so far is a "sorry, but not really sorry thing", if not "yeah, I screwed up but you can go F yourself anyway" situation. By way of analogy, if I drive into the back end of your car, and say "wow, I'm so sorry, totally my fault!" then just drive off, that doesn't resolve the matter or make it okay; it actually makes it worse. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Tony1.

AfC submissions
Random submission

3+ months

2,468 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best time, actually. E Eng 03:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin collusion has been undermining their status for years

"Younger" editors probably don't realise that in the old days admins (and arbitrators) were held in much higher regard. But cumulative abuses of power and a culture that favours lazy press-button actions over remedial engagement with editors has since eaten into admins' status. Adminship used to be a natural part of an editor's trajectory; but for years now, very few editors have subjected themselves to the dysfunctional RfA process with its pathological tinge. Some of those who survive it to be awarded lifelong military stripes feel emboldened to act with scant regard to the policy that governs their actions.

When the light is shone on instances of wrongdoing, predictably a herd mentality takes over: others in the power structure close ranks to self-justify, irrespective of the law that is supposed to safeguard us against the impetuous. We see the same group behaviour among US police departments that shield from due process cops who have shot dead yet another African American in the streets (the yearly statistics are astounding). This is obviously six rungs down the ladder in seriousness, but the tendency toward corrupt collusion is the same. No wonder women comprise not much more than 10% of editors: it's a turn-off.

On this occasion the fundamental error was to press the indefinite block button within a few minutes of an unsubstantiated complaint, at a single admin's whim in blatant defiance of admin policy. That policy requires engagement first, because the consequences of pushing that button can be so egregious. The policy (not merely a guideline) was put there because the community doesn't want admins to get it wrong, even when—unlike here—there might appear to be clear justifcation for the most extreme action.

Here and at the ANI thread, the disregard among many admins for this clearly stated, prominent policy is remarkable. The discourse is dominated not by the admin policy breach that caused the injustice, but about whether what I wrote should be regarded as a legal threat within the intended meaning of WP:NLT. In this respect, several arbitrators were among the worst offenders, yet they are expected to exercise judgement over admin behaviour. GorillaWarfare still can't bring herself to acknowledge that the problem was caused by the admin's abuse of admin policy. Nope, it's all about her pet theories of what constitutes "a.legal.threat". Then we have Newyorkbrad—supposedly a lawyer in real life—driving the theme as much as possible away from the breach of admin policy. No leadership there, sadly; but he never has offered what you'd call leadership. The reasoned Cas Liber doesn't regard the text as a legal threat—we're halfway there—but failed to refer to the elephant in the room: the breach of the admin policy. It makes you wonder about arbs' grasp of policy—or is it wilfully selective?

The usual band of sheriffs came out shouting their opinion that it was indeed a...legal...threat (off to pay my lawyer a fortune to file an international case about, err, reverting on, what? The English Wikipedia. Riiiight. As you wish, sir, $400 an hour). So the admin action was entirely ticketyboo, like, pat on the back, another editor-villian slayed. Among these bad apples are Mendaliv, the epitome of complacent, self-moralising press-button adminning, closely followed by former arb Drmies, a great disappointment from the moment he was foolishly voted onto the Committee. TonyBallioni, Seraphimblade, Baseball Bugs, There'sNoTime, The Bushranger, and Carrite show themselves to be either clueless or, probably more likely, keen to ensure that the admin policy breach remained submerged beneath deceptive noise. Primfac invited anyone to start another ANI thread because I called Oshwa "an idiot"—a judgement I suspect Oshwa agrees with in relation to his action. It's a swashbuckling band we could laugh at if they weren't partly responsible for the decline of respect for admins. And with sincere thanks I accept Oshwah's substantial apology below. Ultimately it's not personal between him and me, but a systemic problem.

Alex Shih, a promising new arb, gets it right in principle: "there is an misunderstanding here and jumping to indefinite block almost immediately on an experienced editor is a unwise idea here I think". But he'll have to do better than that in future—by citing the correct policy, not by framing it as his personal suggestion. Just like NYB: "a note to the editor might have been better as an administrator's first step in this situation, before jumping to an indefinite block". Dude, it's the policy. It's not optional. Stop serving the interests of the worst admins. Even arb User:Euryalus—an excellent proponent of reason—failed to mention The RIght Policy.

It shows a stunning failure of governance and is an invitation to admins to keep treating with indifference a fundamental safeguard against bad blocks. One rule for them, another rule for those they sheriff.

An unfortunate theme here is that a blog-log entry resulting from an admin's breach of policy and a misunderstaning supposedly can't be removed from a blog-log. Among reasons given are that where admins shit all over an editor, we must leave the shit on the editor permanently so we have a convenient record of the admin's bad behaviour. Don't make the community laugh at you. Admins and arbs can't be taken seriously when they talk like that. And I'm more likely to give Oshwa the benefit of the doubt.

Get rid of that erroneous entry on my block-log, and take the relevant clause in the blocking policy seriously. Only then will I return to Wikipedia.

Simple translation: Get that shit out of my public log and keep your own records, even if you have to hold a vote to do it.

I'm standing up for the rights of all non-admin editors here. We should not work under the boot of a gun-happy cavalry that shoots at random.

Tony (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't wanna get shot by a gun-totin' cowboy, don't wear a white shirt with several big, concentric red circles on it. Not once has anyone heard you say, "I screwed up," only a great deal of angst-laden drama and personal-attack venting. Good block? Bad block? Let's call it really, really borderline. But the bottom line is you screwed up to start with. So let's just give the high drama and the ultimatums a miss. You've flipped the administrator the bird, move along. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you are one confused puppy, both about what happened and about the way things ought to happen. Tony used the word legal in a post, and with no further contact -- without warning or attempt at clarification -- he was blocked; the bird came later, and was deserved. At this point I care little who did what "to start with"; I care how well admins ended it, and that was done badly at first, and now worse and worse. The admin himself (Oshwah) admits he deserves a bird, so why can't you? The most important part of what Tony says above is his opening: "'Younger' editors probably don't realise that in the old days admins (and arbitrators) were held in much higher regard." Your attitude in this matter epitomizes why that's no longer the case. E Eng 05:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You remember these "old days"? I certainly don't and I've been here about as long as Tony. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the "old days" is about the approach to adminship; back in 2007 when I passed RfA, my impression was that admins treat other editors on the same level. Certainly the community has evolved considerably that the "no big deal" mindset has diminished, but it is the principle that I personally would like to uphold in some form. Alex Shih (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you mentioned me here, I'll remind you that I'm hardly a "younger" editor. I've been editing Wikipedia for well over a decade now. Come to think of it, I've been an admin for a little over a decade. So I can say with some certainly that admins who make a tough call getting shit flung at them is hardly a new phenomenon. And had they made a different decision, they would've still had shit flung at them, just from a different direction. You can never please everyone.

I'm sorry you're upset about what happened. You're an experienced editor indeed, but I'd expect such an experienced editor to know that talking about things going to a "legal" level comes with a lot of baggage here, especially given that on occasion, that's actually happened.

Blocks are reversible. As soon as the situation was clarified, you were unblocked, which was in fact exactly what I called for to happen.

Editing Wikipedia is of course strictly voluntary, and any editor can choose to stop at any time. I hope we'll see you around again and can consider this a learning experience for everyone involved, but of course that's ultimately your decision to make. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, which is well-meant. But it sidelines the key issue I've pointed out in the statement above. I want to hear people like you address that rather than pretend it didn't exist and shift the blame to me. Tony (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Seraphimblade, but please explain. Oshwah made the wrong call (per NLT policy, which calls for getting clarification before blocking) and, as you say, is getting shit for it. But had he "made a different decision" -- had sought the clarification, and therefore had not blocked -- do you really think he'd be getting shit for it? This has nothing to do with "pleasing everyone", it has to do with doing the right thing, per policy. I've said several times that Oshwah was only following the bad example seen over and over in alleged "legal threat" situations, but at the very least admins can use this incident to start educating themselves on what the right thing to do is, rather than just telling rank and file editors to suck it up yet once more. E Eng 06:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC) (Bedtime)[reply]

I'll note that I agree the immediate blocking shouldn't have happened, and (unless it is utterly explict i.e. "You'll be hearing from my solicitor") I would never drop an immediate NLT block like that without asking for clarification and a chance to retract or clarify. But I'm uncertain about the violation of administrative policy that is being said happened; I assume Tony is referring to the "failure to communicate" line in WP:ADMINACCT? But the blocking policy explicitly says "warnings are not a preresquisite for blocking", and while WP:NLT says that admins "should" request clarification, the word used is should, not shall. Maybe this should be changed, but as it stands, this doesn't seem as egrerious a violation as is being said.

Furthermore, while I can completely understand Tony's frustration with this, the abundant assumptions of bad faith in the above make it hard to sympathise: primarily the declaration that any admins who agree with the block are "clueless or more likely [colluding]"; the comparison to cop shootings is, speaking frankly, absolutely disgusting.

Finally, there's one thing about all this that got buried in the ensuing mess: no editor should be attacked for wishing another editor a Merry Christmas, or any other holiday, religious or otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Should" and "shall" you might split legalistic hairs over. It should probably be "must" or "will" (not "shall" in modern English, thanks), but the meaning is perfectly clear with "should". Are you excusing the way the incident was handled? Don't. There have been far too many hapharard blocks, and it damages the social texture—as here: "frustration" isn't the word for it. I make the comparison with the collusive behaviour after cop shootings, not the shootings themselves. I stand by it. Your contributions have been very unhelpful until now, which is an example of the broader problem. To address your final cut, the editor had been sarcastic through the whole thread. I was fed up. And that has nothing to do with the issues in my statement above, so you're sidelining again. Tony (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, in response to EEng and Tony, there are a couple of questions. Is the way it was handled the way I would've done it? Well, no. If I'd been the one to first see the situation, I would indeed have popped over here and said "Hey, what you said looks an awful lot like a legal threat. Can you clarify if you're intending to take legal action over this?" Presumably, the answer would have been no, and we'd all have been on our way. But, then, like above, I have a bit more experience under my belt, and so I often know when warning or clarifying might be more effective than the block button.

But by the time I saw it, the block had already been put in place, and was up for review. I don't have a time machine, I can't undo what's already been done. At that point, the question is not "Did the blocking admin do things exactly the way I would have done them?", but "Could a reasonable person believe a block was justified here?". In that case, the answer was, well, yes. Someone had brought the "legal" terminology into it, and someone who has been around long enough to know how that might be interpreted. So, my advice was that the block was not totally unfounded or without cause, but should be lifted immediately if Tony clarified that no legal action was intended. At that point, I think that was the best way to handle the situation given where it already was.

Tony, as to you, to be honest, I don't hold you entirely blameless. Throwing around "legal" when you don't actually intend legal action has a very high chance of being misinterpreted, and you've been around long enough to know that. In the future, if you intend to report someone to a noticeboard, well, say it in that way instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to sideline, by blaming me. That's the sickness in admin culture on display with flashing lights. It's not about assessing the context of my use of the word "legal". It's about the admin's failure to ask me for clarification. Point blank. Stop excusing your sick culture. That is the collusion.

So all you're doing, Seraphimblade, is to cement in my mind my utter disrespect for admins. They have no credibility in my view. It's corrupt. Tony (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, you mention the word "reasonable" ("Could a reasonable person believe a block was justified here?") and that word also appears in WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats (It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat). To be fair, that section also advises choosing "less charged wording", and had Tony1 done so, none of this would have started. Nonetheless, my point is that a reasonable person can only see the block as justified (or even justifiable) if that reasonable person saw a legal threat... and so I ask you (and anyone who cares to comment) what actual legal action Tony1 could have taken to make his comment reasonably interpretable as a threat to initiate such action? If a child holds his or her breathe and refuses the speak or breathe until a parent capitulates, would anyone seriously suggest that her or his action could be reasonably described as a suicide attempt? Of course not, because there was and is no prospect that the child's actions could result in death. In this case, I see no prospect that there was any actual legal action that Tony1 could take, rendering the interpretation that a reasonable person could take his words as a legal threat untenable. It also makes the judgement that Oshwah made to block without asking worse (though I was impressed with the apology and am glad it was offered and accepted), and the ANI comments that the block was justified appear knee-jerk and ill-informed. My first reading of the "legal action" comment was that it sounded like a legal threat but looking at the context, that reading was unsustainable and does not pass the test of being reasonably understood as the sort of comment for which WP:NLT exists. I wonder how many of those who commented looked only at the phrase "legal action" divorced of context. I think that some rewording of WP:NLT is needed to avoid precipitous blocking actions, but I also recognise that such will not help while admin culture remains disinclined to respond productively to honest critique. EdChem (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the hand-waving by these respondents is ever going to get around a single clear fact: the admin policy instructs admins to engage with the editor in question before issuing a block for something they think might be a legal threat (and it was pretty ridiculous to think that was a real one anyway), and Oshwah didn't do it. No amount of "cover other admins' asses" stuff can escape or hide this. I've been here 12 years, and yes, the admins in "the old days" were generally not a bunch of ban-happy hooligans. They understood that you don't take harsh administrative actions against established editors without utterly defensible reasons, because these editors are why we have quality articles. Tony's quite correct that nonsense like this block – and maybe more to the point, other admins' attempts to defend it to protect their "cop brotherhood" – brings adminship and WP administration in the broader sense into ill[er] repute. I ran for ArbCom as a non-admin for a reason (and missed election by less than 3%; will try again this coming December, because something has to change). That said, I don't think blocks can be removed from logs, but a new entry in the log can be made that explains why the block wasn't valid, and at bare minimum that definitely needs to happen here. PS: I do not for one second believe the b.s. about NLT being used all the time in a trigger-happy manner. Of the dozen or so people I've reported over the years for legal threats (mostly defamation claims) only one was ever blocked. Admins do not in fact listen at all to NLT claims unless they're utterly unambiguous (as in "I'm am going to sue you and Wikipedia unless ..." or "If you don't do what I demand, I will contact my attorney immediately and see you in court"); that makes this particular obviously-not-really-a-legal-threat invalid block case all the worse. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 14:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any block log modification will probably need consensus or the admin doing the modification will need to make it clear that they're acting based on their own judgement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah? E Eng 18:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that anyway. Any consensus of reviewing admins can conclude the block wasn't valid and amend the block. While this could be done as formal WP:DRAMA at WP:AN, why bother? Just fix it. Or Oshwah can just do it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A legal threat from concept to completion of the first phase of legal action (demand letter from the litigating attorney) takes at least 6 mos. Surely that leaves time for an admin to ask the "accused" what was meant. This whole NLT thing has been blown so far out of proportion, thoughts of Kim Jong-un are dancing in my head instead of visions of sugar plums. Plant feet firmly on ground lest they end up in mouth. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, I hope that you will come to decide to return to editing, and I agree strongly with you about how there is something wrong with the system when admins can't/won't revise block logs. Admins make mistakes, and mistakes ought to be corrected without excuse-making. The argument that all kinds of problems will result from allowing revision of block logs, and that blocks are no big deal, doesn't hold water. If blocks were no big deal, then it wouldn't be a big deal to correct the record of them. It's a digital log, not divine revelation. It should be possible to enter a corrective statement into the log, after the unblock, without having to make a technical one-second block to do so. Anyway, I can tell you from personal experience that, with the passage of a bit of time, it becomes very easy to regard one's block as being in the category of "who cares anymore?". When someone blocks you, it reflects on them rather than on you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. Though I sympathize with Tony and support his right to demand fixing this, I'm saddened that he may not return due to this unfortunate travesty, which will be eventually seen as trivial and forgotten, like his previous indef block, and like mine (OK, mine was actually serious, his wasn't, so that's a bad comparison, but still, one gets over these things). Hopefully, some good will come of this, with admins finding a way to change their behavior and minimize the damage they do. Standing up for each other is often just wrong, and many (hopefully not most) seem to do that reflexively. Dicklyon (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It reflects on them rather than you." – If only that were true. I've been walking on eggshells for years because of a handful WP:INVOLVED admin actions against me which people use again and again and again as a threat basis. "Oh, I see you were blocked once over something related to RM; if you don't give me my way in my renaming spree, I'm going to take you to ANI again and see if I can get you move banned", "Oh, I see that you got topic banned briefly from MoS; if you don't give me my way imposing some stupid style quirk, I'm going to take you to AE and see if I can get you site-banned" (in less obvious wording, of course), and so on. Even admins have done this to me; I'm not talking about "don't know how it works" noobs, or "not really WP:COMPETENT" long-term flameheads. This shit has real consequences for editors, especially those of use who are not members of the admin good-ol'-boys' club. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree with you. What I said about "reflects" wasn't about what all users might think. It's about what I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I object in the strongest possible way to the potential for log entries to be oversight-ed due to duress in situations like this. Personally, I consider this block a very easy mistake to have made, as site documentation generally views legal threats as only slightly less disruptive than adding pornography to navigation templates. However, I feel that a functional administrator recall system would allow for Tony1 to request that Oshwah run a re-confirmation RFA here; perhaps that would be the best way to resolve this issue without losing any editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"due to duress in situations like this"—what on Earth do you mean? You give utterly no substantive reasoning. But it seems like many people here, all you care about is protecting admin power at the expense of the wider community. That's why I'm leaving. The guy made a bad mistake. I've forgiven him privately, and that was very productive between us. Now get the shit out of my public block log or I don't want to be associated with this corrupted community. Tony (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except this wasn't a legal threat, just as every picture of genitals isn't pornography. E Eng 05:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Block logs should be expunged after a set time - example, 1 block - remove 1 year after the block; 2 blocks - remove 2 years after the last block; 3 blocks or more - 3 years after the last block. What we have now is a block log being used like a rap sheet - it serves no good purpose. Hell, speeding tickets are expunged from a driving record after 2 or 3 years, and speeding can be life threatening! During a trial, prior convictions are only allowed under certain circumstances, but here on WP, the whole world has access to an editor's block log. Blocks brand an editor as disruptive regardless of the circumstances, be it a simple mistake, a disagreement, a misunderstanding, a railroading by system gamers, or whatever. The block log creates bad first impressions and preconceived notions, and that simply isn't fair. Most editors who have been recipients of a block manage to adjust but the scar remains for the rest of that editor's WP career. It's time for that to be changed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's useful, the policy on block log redactions is here. Like most things it can be amended via community RFC. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A case might be made that a block log is, per Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#2, Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy. BLP policy applies everywhere on WP, and a block log is grossly insulting, degrading and offensive. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the sentiment but this would be outside any previous use of RD2, and would internally contradict the log redaction section of the same policy. If the community no longer supports the log redaction policy it should change it, but really this should happen in a way that can be consistently applied, and not via creative reinterpretation of one section of the existing rules. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious and correct thing to do here, given that Oshwah realized this was a mistake, is to amend the block log with an annotation that Tony1 didn't really do what he was accused of. If that takes a 1-sec. "miniblock" to be possible, just do it. No one cares, and the log is full of such corrections. Failure to make them can lead to massive, time-sucking shitstorms of drama down the road (most commonly faulty ANI cases predicated on the false assumption that someone "has been blocked for being disruptive" before, ergo it's a pattern, yadda yadda yadda). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of the reference, this would be permittted by policy as outlined here). -- Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the situation, the current unblock comment reads "User clarified their statement, and was not a legal threat. Unblocking". What more needs to be added? - Bilby (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm just not smart enough to understand the consequences of whacking the block log entry, but, to me, this seems like a clear case of when it is appropriate to ignore the rules. There are certainly no legal consequences that I can think of and I see no reason why WMF would care, so, if it is technically possible to do what Tony requests, I fail to see the harm in doing so; the encyclopedia will certainly be improved by Tony's return to editing and will be hindered if he does not. No one is suggesting a permanent change to policy (which would require an RFC), but, in this case, I fail to see why we can't make an exception to the rule, annul the mistake, and move on. Go Phightins! 08:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to steal your talk page for this Tony. @Go Phightins!: If it's okay to ignore the policy (which is crystal clear with underline and bold text) this time, what about the next time an admin makes a mistake in a block or with what they say in the block log, or the time after that, or the time after that. Should an admin be redacting a block they made or should it be done by someone uninvolved or by consensus. There are too many questions here and precedents to be set without there being an RfC to change the policy (which is pretty clear that redacting block logs isn't on). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're perfectly happy that unjustly treated editors continue to shoulder the burden for your own administrative convenience, because you and your fellow admins can't be bothered to propose a system that treats non-admins more reasonably. It's not a community I want to be part of. Tony (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No reason you couldn't propose that RfC yourself Tony. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact a substantial effort to scrub this mistake from Tony's block log, and return his services to the community has not taken place is shameful. Stop hand-waving, covering the mistake made here, and justifying the almighty admin powers because here is the one and only thing we know is a fact: admins must communicate before they block in this scenario, especially when their target is a positive long-term community member. Just get Tony back and, you know, benefit the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Callanecc isn't talking about Admin convenience. If anything he's talking about the community. The community set the policy, Admins shouldn't ignore it. My block log has a block done in error on it, but I think it would be wrong for me to ask for it to be redacted. Tony, you were unblocked and the note in your block log makes it clear that you didn't make a legal threat. It's your choice whether you return to editing, and I hope you do, but your decision shouldn't be a reason for us to go against policy. I don't think my block has made people think I'm a bad editor and I don't think this block will make anyone think anything other than you were misunderstood. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's worth considering the exact wording, and the tone, of the unblock notation, because it can have a significant effect on how the blocked editor will feel about it, and how members of the community will later regard it. Doug, in your case the notation was: "wrong target, so so sorry". In Tony1's case, it noted a "clarification" as the reason for the unblock, and there's a difference. When the message says "wrong" and "so so sorry", there is no doubt that the blocking admin considers the block to have been an error and regrets it. But simply saying, in effect, now it's been clarified and so it's safe to unblock, leaves some onus on the blocked editor. It's not the same thing. And an editor cannot be blamed for feeling that it will be seen differently by people looking at the block log. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgive me, but this discussion reminds me of trying to get Congress/Parliament to lower their salaries and accept term limits. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both of you are free to start an RfC at WT:Revision deletion. It's nothing like Congress/Parliament, anyone is free to propose an RfC and it doesn't matter whether admins comment or not, it matters on which side the consensus lies. I'd also point out that redacting the block log only hides it from non-admins, administrators can still see things which have been revision deleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that, Callan. Not sure that I would be the best candidate to propose an RfC but would certainly be interested in collaborating with others to get it done. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I could do that, but revdel isn't what I've been advocating (although other editors have). I've primarily been talking about how admins can and should do things better within existing policy. I'm pretty sure there is nothing within existing policy that prevents admins from learning better ways to express themselves in block logs. As for being able to add comments to block logs without actually blocking, I did propose that a few years ago at the meta community wishlist survey. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1, would it be acceptable to you if someone (preferably Oshwah) were to block you very briefly with a note that the previous block was an error (wording to be agreed in advance)? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come on!! Two blocks for the price of none? Fix the issue, get Oshwah to relinquish his tools for repeated failure to "understand" the community, apologise to Tony, and then you're in with a chance. Right now this is a perfect example of why the community has no trust in admins, Arbcom, WMF etc. This pitiful block made before any kind of communication is exactly why there's not faith left, you people with the "rights" have failed summarily to "communicate" and simply act on a trigger finger. Please tell me: what is so bad that could happen in these circumstances that could not be mitigated with some communication? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, I'm trying to find a solution that will bring Tony back. I agree that there should have been communication. WP:NLT said, at the time of the block: "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." More importantly (in my view), this wasn't even an apparent threat. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes so reblocking temporarily is not going to work, is it? Do any of you people actually understand this kind of humiliation? Apparently not, that's why we need an RFC to now fix (a) this situation and (b) get a massive overhaul on the way these admins are handled after such massive failures. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for what it's worth, I'm more than content (given Tony's blessing) to formulate an RFC to get this examined and gather a fulsome Wikipedia-wide input. A mere glance at my own block log shows at least three occasions where an admin has acted like a dick and then been summarily overturned some minutes or hours later. All because of lack of communication. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I disagree, and I don't think Oshwah should be desysopped for this mistake, especially given that Tony's accepted Oshwah's sincere apology. We're all frustrated that Tony was driven into retirement, but as Casliber pointed out above, this is all starting to go about in circles. Maybe an RFC isn't a bad idea. ceranthor 22:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it's not the first time that Oshwah has failed to be a useful admin through his apparent misunderstanding of communications. Sincere apology or not, we can't keep accepting failure. And once again, the apologists are overlooking the fact that we should talk before blocking. How many times?????? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of Oshwah's history. If there is a pattern of problems with any admin then that is what requesting a review of tools (at arbcom) is for. And regards to policy and block logs, that is what an RfC is for. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to all - this discussion is going nowhere fast so let's stop before it gets there. We're about to be bringing in 2018 - that's only 2 years away from 20-20 (ABC will have to rename their show). I've proposed a potential remedy earlier in this thread and have been working on putting together a little project in the background with hopes of presenting a feasible proposal that will send positive ripples throughout the community. If I may please ask that we take this time to enjoy the end of the holiday season - give Tony a chance to put all this disruption aside for the moment - and allow us to present to our trusted admins a proposal they can't refuse. 🐴 (j/k) HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ONE & ALL!!! 🎉🥂🍾 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was scorched earth the best approach to an outbreak of smallpox toothpaste being squeezed out of the tube?? But Tony1, I really hope you don't retire over something as epically trivial as this. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC) .... "Look, let's save ourselves a lot of time. Let's be honest. There are better things we could be doing,"[reply]

Please don't go

We need you, Tony. Seriously. We really, really need you. Happy New Year. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have talked about this elsewhere, but I've got to say this - Tony, your writing guides were what prompted me to start getting articles up to GA back in mid-2012. I've done over 100 since (still waiting to actually get a FAC passed solo, maybe next decade), and I would not have had the confidence to do so without your excellent advice. If that's not enough to say how depressed I was to see this block and subsequent retirement, I don't know what is. Oshwah has shown immediate remorse over it; in the meantime I have put the feelers out elsewhere to try and get the block log redacted so you can return. You make a legitimate point that over time, the public block log sticks around, while the discussions around it get archived and are hard to find - you cannot simply look at a log and tell if a block was any good or not. If I could unilaterally scrub the log without fear of receiving a similar block and being yelled at a lot, I would. I hate being called "an admin", I am an editor who happens to have a few extra buttons for maintenance and all other editors are on an equal footing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The block log clearly indicates that the block was a mistake, and was quickly retracted, so it's not a blemish but an unintentional hiccup which any discerning editor will figure out just by reading it. No harm done, and the initial block was in good faith and its retraction in equal good faith. That's what the game is about here, and assuming that good faith may be needed by all parties in this mix-up. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement is for retirees, and I don't think you really want to give up the ghost on Wikipedia just yet. Maybe take a few hours/days off to play and relax, then toss those retirement templates into the back of a drawer and come out to play again. You've been a fine voice for both reason (and sometimes unreason) here, and losing good and experienced editors helps no one. Happy New Year, and when you get back have a wiki-drink (and a side order of fries) on me. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's never a shortage of administrators ready to charge in and open fire, yet when it comes to cleaning up the mess everyone's suddenly always walking on eggshells. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb: With threads like this and this, can you blame me? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not you personally, of course not. It's the way things are here, and it sucks. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also promise you that side order of fries (as your name suggests). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

p.s. re eggshells... I can also offer my very tasty "two minute legal omelette." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to help make change, get involved - User:Atsme/Blocking_policy_proposal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've not always agreed with you, but I've always admired you. Come back when you're ready. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to see this—I went through all of Tony's helpful writing exercises when I first got serious about writing articles here. I hope whatever this is about, you'll still come back, Tony. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please fix this!

Today, January 7th, is the day I was supposed to be unblocked, having received a ridiculous 3-month block without merit back in October. Thankfully, it was undone, and I proceeded to make thousands of improvements to the project during this duration in which it was supposed to be protected from me. I, Joefromrandb, am a lowly copy-editor. Tony1 is one of the movers and shakers here. I ask everyone to contemplate the cost to the project of losing Tony for 3 months, let alone permanently. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+2. --Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. We know exactly what the fix it, discussed in detail above. The only reason it's not been done is a bunch of fucking procedure-is-more-than-people wikilawyering. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echo the sentiments expressed above. I think it's a shame that Tony may not return, as his writing advice, bluntly as it was expressed at times, helped me become a far better writer and editor. ceranthor 01:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What has to happen to get it done? I suggested above that someone block him briefly with a note that the previous block was an error, but that didn't get a positive response. Tony1, do you have a view on that? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain Tony1 but I sure hope you return someday. I respect all you have done for the website and am very appreciative for all your contributions.--MONGO 13:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I offer heartfelt thanks to editors who have contributed constructively and with the kind of empathy and practical generosity we expect of all administrators—if nothing else, as an example to the rest of the community. That requires more time and effort than the knee-jerk quick-and-dirty behaviours we so often see among admins, but is critical if WP's curators are to remain a stable rock in a world falling apart. There is scant evidence of a more sophisticated adminning that engages personally and productively where waters are ruffled, to smooth over, to resolve, rather than damaging the community. Better adminning would help to retain valuable editors, particularly women.

So it has been disappointing to see the persistence of the unreconstructed admin-as-cop-with-gun attitude among a proportion of admins who have recently trodden on this page. They have roundly displayed their contempt for the policies that are meant to constrain their actions for the good of the community—pushing policy-driven obligations under the carpet and theme-shifting to blame the editor damaged by an admin policy breach. This points to a need to work against the herd mentality of that power structure, and it is why admins as a whole do not have my confidence on this site.

Taking up SarahSV's sensible suggestions above, I've emailed Oshwah, asking him to consider conducting a "one-minute block" to record a brief apology and acknowledgment of the policy breach. Tony (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]