Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive748

• This is a serious issue as there are hundreds of articles about dubious companies, diploma mills, products, and similar SPA magnets. Yes, discussion is necessary and edit warring is bad, but the standard required by Tiptoety in this case is so unrealistic as to fail the laugh test. Would people please review the history at MonaVie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and comment on how they would like an admin to handle such a situation? I find it unacceptable that an admin should think it desirable to block an editor who has made three edits in the past two months with no warning that such high standards were expected (particularly when each of the three edits is good, and the editor made three good comments at the talk page in the same period). Are there some particular sanctions applying to this topic, or should good editors abandon trying to protect Wikipedia from SPA POV pushers? Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Tiptoety has now posted on my talk page, first with a rather equivocal apology [9], and then, after I suggested that a response here would seem appropriate, a repeat of the apology, and a statement that he/she has "no interest in furthering the drama an AN/I". Frankly, I find this rather distainful dismissal of due process further grounds to question Tiptoety's qualifications to be an admin. A gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy like this needs more than half-hearted apologies, as Johnuniq suggests above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can only second Johnuniq's comments. First off how can any of the three blocks handed out be viewed as anything but punitive? If it truly was a slow edit war (and the evidence for that is lacking) 24 hour blocks are not going to "prevent" anything. As has been shown discussion about the article was taking place on its talk page so the block did not cool anyone off or start a discussion where one wasn't going on. Next, I know that it is nice idea to have a "stable" version of an article but at its basic level Wikipedia is designed so that articles evolve and change over time, thus, the term "stable" is relative. When it comes to articles about politics (current politics anyway), religion and pseudo science experience has shown that it is unlikely that there will ever be a "stable" version. Even if an article has achieved some stability for a few months new SPA's and POV pushers will always arrive. In this case it looks like the admin culled through the edit history and then blocked those that had made changes over a period of weeks or months without thoroughly investigating what those edits were. If an admin is in the pursuit of a "stable" version of an article they should make sure that they have all of the facts at hand before making a decision to block anyone. That involves discussing things with the editors involved. They could then issue suggestions to the parties. Also, I don't see anything that states that uninvolved admins or editors can't start a "Request for Comment" or get a "Dispute Resolution" process underway. Either of those would be better than pulling the trigger and issuing punitive blocks. Blocks like this one can only have a chilling effect on the community at large and that will only embolden vandals, SPAs and POV pushers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh the drahma. An admin made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Even AndyTheGrump makes mistakes. The mistake was swiftly rectified. No harm to ATG. Tiptoety admitted the mistake and apologized. Regardless, ATG maintains full-blown vindictive mode, with repeated po-faced assertions that the mistake - and the choice not to participate in this dramafest - are "grounds for questioning" Tiptoety's "suitability as an administrator". Please. Get over yourself Andy. To be AndyTheMagnanimous might even make you feel good! Writegeist (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So admins issuing precipitous drive-by blocks and then apologising (less than enthusiastically) afterwards when called to account by multiple contributors isn't an issue for ANI? What the heck is this noticeboard for then? Or are admins supposed to get a free pass? As for 'No harm to ATG', ignoring the fact that I've had to waste hours sorting this mess out when I could have been doing something more useful, other contributors were also blocked. More to the point though Tiptoety still seems to think that this was some sort of 'judgement call', whereas almost everyone else seems to think otherwise. So yes, I question Tiptoety's "suitability as an administrator" - as I (and any other Wikipedia contributor) is entitled to, particularly when they seem to be so clueless about policy, and so dismissive of requests to adequately explain themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dismissing Andy's report in these terms implies that the other editors who have commented here and elsewhere are misguided and that their comments need no consideration. A quick resolution would start with a consensus that the blocks were wildly wrong (not just a "mistake")—any good editor would have done what Andy did. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm. You're missing the point: Tiptoety doesn't have to give a shit. Andy should be grateful to have received an apology; if that isn't enough, Andy should just be re-blocked for his ungratefulness. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he should be grateful that an administrator would give even a weaselly, backhanded apology to a lowly commoner. If that peasant doesn't like it, he should be thrown back to the pillory for such insolent insubordination. ~~

talk

) 04:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of contributing to "the drahma" (something I cannot often be accused of), I'll weigh in to agree with Johnuniq 100%. As far as I can tell, Andy wasn't even close to edit warring. Judging from the five diffs at the top of the thread, what he was doing was making fully constructive, highly clueful edits. While admins, like the rest of us, do make mistakes and hardly need to prostrate themselves in shame afterward, some of the comments I'm seeing in this thread appear dismissive of the gravity of the mistake. Aside from the block's being unjustified on edit warring grounds, it was also procedurally bad because there was no apparent reason to believe it would prevent disruption. It certainly gives me pause, anyway, and makes me wonder if my lack of blocks to date is due less to good behavior and more to some sort of incredible luck. Or maybe I have a guardian angel. Or something. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, of course. But when a rollbacker makes a mistake rollback is taken away. When an administrator makes a mistake (and this was a big one) the usual suspects turn out to defend it. The bottom line is that Tiptoey has shown himself to be an incompetent administrator and should be desysoped.

Fatuorum

06:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, speaking of drahma . . . You lost me there. While the mistake was a serious one, I cannot see that it constitutes evidence of incompetence. In most cases we should be forgiven for our big mistakes as well as our small ones. I draw a distinction, however, between forgiving those who make mistakes and treating the victims of those mistakes in a casually dismissive manner. Rivertorch (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it a little more bluntly for you then. It wasn't a mistake, it was evidence of incompetence. The only other explanation is dishonesty, but I'll leave that for others to decide. Either way, do we really need incompetent/dishonest administrators?

Fatuorum

06:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this is why I avoid ANI. My better nature is screaming at me to unwatchlist this and go elsewhere, but the evil demon within goads me to respond just once more. You're making a very serious allegation that cannot possibly be documented by citing only one incident. Suggesting that another editor is incompetent (or, far worse, dishonest) without providing proper substantiation seems to me just about as reckless and callous as blocking someone without cause or making light of such a block. There are human beings behind these usernames, and they deserve better than that. Rivertorch (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you've never encountered Malleus before. This is his normal MO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You lot may be afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel, but I'm not.

Fatuorum

18:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I dare say I do disagree with the rollback comparison. "when a rollbacker makes a mistake rollback is taken away" I've made mistakes a couple of times with rollback, a misclick and a misread of something, and I still have rollback. I agree that rights should be taken away from people who deliberately and/or consistently misuse them, but if they're taken away for one mistake, no one will ever have any rights whatsoever (perhaps that'd be a good thing, heh). If Tiptoety hadn't apologised and admitted they were in error, I'd think differently. Everyone makes mistakes. Hard pushed to find an admin who hasn't. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "afraid" of anything. I disagree with you, and find your "fuck the police" attitude towards admins tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"What do we do about SPA POV pushers?" Let me know when you find out.[10] Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Leave them a note explaining why their edits are problematic. If they carry on bring them here (or somewhere else). If you can show they've been warned and then they carried on regardless, then that's a reason to block. You're right though that admins should help editors who are willing to defend our articles against SPA POV pushers and give them a little leeway in terms of 3RR/civility. The project needs more editors who will stand up against them, rather than more POV pushers. SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please close this? Andy was blocked. He was unblocked because the block was unwarranted. He received an apology from the blocking admin, although it wasn't apparently as abject as Andy felt it should have been. After that, the discussion devolved into an argument of how much blood we should draw from the blocking admin to see if he has an enzyme for incompetence and should therefore be euthanized.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please not close this. As I made quite clear at the start, and others have subsequently also suggested, there are issues other than the inappropriate behaviour of a single admin being discussed here: in particular, we need to clarify what the situation is when having to revert POV-pushing SPAs who refuse to comply with policy (and often refuse to communicate at all). If editors have to risk being blocked for 'edit-warring' due to well-intentioned (and seemingly policy compliant) actions taken out to preserve NPOV in contentious/fringe articles, Wikipedia will have a serious problem keeping such articles policy-compliant. Though BTW, I'd also like some clarification on whether an admin, when asked to explain their actions at ANI declines to do so: per

WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". I feel that a mere apology on a talk page (of only one of the persons blocked) falls well short of this. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sympathetic to you on this one, Andy: editors who try to ensure our articles comply with

WP:BRD) should get some support from the admin corps, and that support is woefully inconsistent. Sometimes such editors get prompt and helpful responses from admins, sometimes – as in your case – they get blocked for insisting that BRD be followed. Is it possible to sort out that inconsistency at AN/I? Probably not. Would an RfC help? Maybe. 28bytes (talk

) 19:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two issues, as I see it: I can't imagine there will be much appetite for sanctioning an admin whose first response to being challenged is "It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize." At least I don't have an appetite for it, others may. The broader issue is, when someone with either an axe to grind against an article subject or an interest in whitewashing legitimate, reliably sourced criticism repeatedly ignores the bold-revert-discuss cycle and just re-inserts their changes without consensus, how can editors stop that without making them vulnerable to edit-warring blocks themselves? Perhaps either promoting BRD to a policy, or incorporating stronger language into the edit-warring policy that makes it explicit that bold-revert-bold is the "official" start of an edit war (analogous to the language used in

WP:WHEEL: "Do not repeat a reversed administrative actionedit when you know that another administratoreditor opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversalsreverts without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing.") Or perhaps some other approach. An RfC may not solve it but I think the odds are greater than trying to solve it here, especially when it's tied to a specific admin action. 28bytes (talk

) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been a mistake, it was a mistake, and a bad one, which is the issue that's being swept under the carpet here.

Fatuorum

21:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "swept under the carpet," it's "this isn't enough to block/desysop him for." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think codifying BRD would really help much. In my experience, once we get Edit-Revert-Edit-Revert, the reverting party needs to stop. Post to the talk page, post to the inserting editor's talk page, try to get a dialog going. If the edit is inserted again, without discussion, it's time to hit

AIV

or ask an admin familiar with the page to intervene. The exception being blatant vandalism on BLP pages. In that case, an Edit-Revert-Edit should be taken straight to AIV. Either way, repeatedly reverting the edit is just asking for trouble. What looks like clear vandalism to one person may actually be a legitimate edit to an uninvolved party.

I honestly find the

WP:DR system rather ineffectual in these situations, especially RfCs. The latter tends to just drag on with no resolution until one side gives up out of frustration, or starts inserting the material again. I'm just not sure what we could effectively replace DR with outside granting admins more broad leeway to block (which would just make things more tense than they are now). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AIV? AIV is completely the wrong place to go. POV pushing isn't vandalism. It can be equally disruptive, but it's different. It's not in the scope of AIV at all. I don't know what experience you've had, but having whoever reverts need to stop results in an easy way to game the system and push disruptive text in. Guideline or not,

WP:BRD provides a base point. As you noted, DR is often ineffective. If we're set to punish those that revert, AndyTheGrump is right in saying the articles will go to "snake-oil salesmen" or the equivalent in whatever the dispute is. CMD (talk

) 23:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As a comment, an admin who has made one mistake, unless it's absolutely jumping the shark, shouldn't be subject to desysopping; I suspect all of our admins can pass the Turing test and are, therefore, not expected to be perfect. If there was a pattern of administorial misbehavior, then perhaps, but that does not seem to be the case here. Consensus is it was a bad block, the admin involved apologised (where they apologised is irrelevant; they apologised clearly in a place where the person being apologised to clearly would see it, insisting they apologise more elsewhere is just hauling to the pillory), and the heat:light ratio here is threatening to rise. {{Trout}} the admin in question and close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

All mistakes are not equal; I note that you make no distinction in that respect. There's an absurd assumption here that you can just reverse a bad block and no harm done. Let me assure you that's very far from the truth.

Fatuorum

22:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be several misunderstandings above, regarding what happened, and when. Firstly, The Hand That Feeds You states that "repeatedly reverting the edit is just asking for trouble". As the diffs show, it wad different material that was being reverted, except for a single case. It is also untrue to suggest that we are referring to "an admin whose first response to being challenged [was] 'It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize'". Tiptoety's first response was to attempt to justify the block by referring to my actions as edit-warring, falsely suggesting that I had failed to try to resolve the issue through discussion. It was only when I raised the matter here that Tiptoety apologised: and only to me - no apology to the others blocked, and no apology for the trouble this ridiculous set of blocks had caused others to sort out. Tiptoety's refusal to discuss the issue here, combined with an editing pattern I find rather troubling in its limited scope, suggests to me that we do a problem with an out-of-touch admin, and/or a clear misunderstanding as to how we should be dealing with POV-pushing SPAs who are unwilling to work within policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is claiming that because Tiptoety made a mistake their admin bit should be removed. There are three issues (it's #1 and #2 which call into question Tiptoety's suitability as an admin):

1. Tiptoety's apology was one of those dismissive "...correct my mistakes if I make them. It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize" apologies which superficially ticks the CIVIL box but which reveals that there has been no thought at all about the matter.
2. Tiptoety has declined to participate in a very reasonable ANI discussion. There is no need for a protracted back-and-forth, just one clear statement on the underlying issue.
3. What are good editors to do when faced with POV-pushing SPAs? The above suggestion that "it's time to hit
   AIV
   or ask an admin familiar with the page to intervene" is totally unhelpful. The AIV suggestion is a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of AIV (read the box at the top), and there is no mechanism to find an admin familiar with the page. Also it is not reasonable that those defending the encycopedia should spend half an hour writing reports for every one-minute addition of unsuitable content (of course some time on talk is necessary, but it is not reasonable to require a lengthy analysis for every edit).

Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, that wasn't an apology worthy of its name from Tiptoety. It was a very poor triple block all reverted on first inspection by other administrators and, 3, yes, I agree such actions degrade users ability to defend NPOV edits - Andy's edits as displayed by Toat were in no way blockable - I wondered , who asked him to do it? was there any off wiki requests, or on that chat log irc thing, it was hard to see why he did it but at least this exposure will stop him doing it again in future - I have on multiple occasions when attempted to apply policy to edits a COI SPA has been just reverting and failing to discuss had to just say, what the hell let them add whatever they want rather than get blocked.Youreallycan 23:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

From

WP:EDITWAR

:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned.

To answer the original question, anyone who participates in an edit war can be blocked per policy. The admin in question has already apologized (even though he may have been right per policy), and while the sincerity of said apology has been called into question (those doing so may want to read

N419BH

00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't right on policy, and there was no edit war. I find this defence of a clear abuse of power to be most unsavoury.

Fatuorum

00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its wiki lawyering nonsense. Ping ! - Who was it that asked Tiptoety to look at the article and was that user involved in editing the article, I have asked User_talk:Fluffernutter#Question if it was him - its incredulous that Tiptoety wandered by and blocked three users for this. Youreallycan 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the merits of this case. The thread is so long

N419BH

00:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you say its too long and yet you come from nowhere, edit history to post two long posts - welcome back - what exactly is your involvement here in this topic? - Youreallycan 00:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you move on N419BH, as you have admitted to having no interest in looking at the facts of this case.

Fatuorum

00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - There is clearly more to this than meets the eye - the focus should remain on the administrators actions, the weakness of policy to protect experienced good faith users from such poor administration is a topic for another location. Youreallycan 00:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Focus on admin actions: "Admin are free to act according to their personal judgement. They are accountable to none." Close this thread now. Moving on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken and your last post here was also completely mistaken, All users are accountable here, Youreallycan 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Some administrators clearly do believe that they're accountable to none, but they're very much mistaken.

Fatuorum

00:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Admins are accountable to the community and are bound by policy. If you feel Tiptoey has lost the confidence of the community to utilize his tools in compliance with policy file a

N419BH

00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no honesty here. An RFC would achieve nothing, as editors like you would once again turn out to support this admin without any interest in the facts.

Fatuorum

01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to contribute to a thread which explains what happens on wikipedia you can go back to cloud cuckoo land. Admins can do whatever they want. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

N419BH

01:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are unresolved issues regarding this issue and User Tipotoety should rather come and answer them -Please don't close the discussion down with demeaning yada yada comments Youreallycan 01:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoey has indicated that he will not enter this discussion; which is completely within his choice to do so. I would suggest asking him regarding the specific issues on his talk page. If he doesn't answer that's also within his choice but I would imagine if you ask him in a cordial and polite manner he will answer you.

N419BH

01:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he doesn't give a shit and he doesn't have to. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that Andy, Malleus, and Youreallycan are "right" here (which is starting to happen frighteningly often, recently). All the ducking and hiding, excuses, and blame shifting (nevermind what appears to be a sockpuppet of someone), are certainly not putting the administrator and his friends in a good light here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Two comments, one with my checkuser hat on, and one off, from reading this thread and doing my own digging. First, with it off, the block of AndyTheGrump and Rhode Island Red are, IMO, bad decisions that have properly been reversed. Second, with it on, the two POV-pushing accounts are socks confirmed by checkuser. AS such Ive blocked Ed.Valdez and YorbaLindaOCMan indefinitely. Courcelles 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Too little too late. Will AndyTheGrump's block be erased from his log? No, of course it won't. Will a record of Tiptoey's bad block be added to his log? No, of course it won't.

  Fatuorum

  02:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  What's a bit surprising/concerning is that Tiptoety is also a CU - shouldn't they have realised the duck like nature of these socks and checked before blocking anyone? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for AN/I resolution 0001: "The Wikipedia community deplores User:Tiptoety's block of AndyTheGrump. This block violated Wikipedia's blocking policies. Further violations of Wikipedia's blocking policies will lead to a referral to ArbCom with the recommendation of desysopping." Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Before commenting on the merits of the proposal, I'd suggest that mention of the block of Rhode Island Red (also trying to maintain NPOV) should be given, and I'm not sure that I'm convinced that on the evidence that Tiptoey had, the block of Ed.Valdez was actually merited, without at least some effort to engage in prior dialogue: he(she?) was at least posting on the talk page. A block for sockpuppetry is another matter, but at the time, this wasn't a consideration. As for the 'resolution' it seems to me that what is actually most problematic wasn't the blocks themselves - which though clearly wrong in at least two cases, might be put down to an error, but the complete failure to engage in any dialogue before. From looking at Tiptoety's edit history, he/she seems to be almost exclusively involved in reverting and warning IPs engaging in simple vandalism/test edits etc, and in checkuser/sockpuppet issues. Less than 1% of Tiptoey's edits are on article talk pages, [11] which suggests to me a reluctance to actually engage on substantive issues regarding article content - less than ideal for an admin, I'd have thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

why? "Every admin can do whatever the fuck they want until some resolution is passed reminding them to keep the promises they made?" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I must've missed something. Who (or what) the hell are you quoting?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's simply rewording the proposed "resolution" into plainspeak. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Only the ArbCom can pass resolutions under Chapter 7, but we can refer cases to the ArbCom based on previous conduct. Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Edit warring → Is there a reason why we should not trash this entire policy (given that it has been declared that an RFC will clearly not resolve anything and that the entire policy is unenforceable)? --MuZemike 07:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide diffs regarding this supposed 'edit warring'. Nobody else has... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my entire point. If wiki-politics is going to decide what is or is not edit warring, then why have a policy in the first place? --MuZemike 07:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Strip Tiptoey of their admin privs unceremoniously after all of their service, and transfer those privs jointly, de facto-style, to Malleus and Andy. We lose one admin, but gain two, just like that! No RfA or anything. Because: they know better. They will never make a similar mistake. And if they did; they'd be extra "forgiving". I just know it. Doc talk 07:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got an even better idea. Read the discussion. Look at the evidence. And then make a meaningful contribution. And for the record, I have no wish to become an admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got an even even better idea. Drop the

N419BH

07:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And a better idea still: Fuck off go away and troll elsewhere, whoever's sockpuppet you are. I'm not trying to get anyone 'desysopped', I'm trying to get a serious problem at least looked at by contributors (admins or otherwise) who actually consider Wikipedia article content more important than the vacuous dramas of ANI and the rest. A POV-pushing sockpuppet was attempting to spin an article in favour of a bunch of dubious characters promoting a 'multi-level-marketing' scheme based on selling vastly-overpriced fruit juice as a cure for anything and everything. For my pains, I got blocked from editing. Do you think this was a good thing, or a bad thing? Unless you have something to say regarding this I don't give a toss what you think - Wikipedia can manage well enough without the 'contributions' of those who seem to think that this is some sort of juvenile role-playing game. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not trying to get Tiptoey desysopped? Good. You've made more than enough comments regarding their ability as an admin: do I need to spell it out for you? Perhaps not trashing them here, and moving along, would show more good faith in regards to that editor. RfC/U is down the street. Sticking to the issue would probably be better than asking for heads to roll. Doc talk 08:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

With over 8,000 total contributions and two

N419BH

08:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What else do I desire? That people who can't be bothered to look at the evidence and the prior discussions keep their opinions to themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Small-browser Break

I'm sorry, but everyone should inhale deeply. Andy started this discussion to open a dialogue and help find a solution to his problem. This whole thing has turned into a mosh pit: It's loud, painful, and extremely hard to pay attention. There are plenty of editors who have been making positive contributions to this discussion, but there are others who are coming in and making pointless entries. At this point, I agree with N419BH; an RfC/U is the best course of action, and then escalate from there if needed. This discussion is starting to degrade, and from the looks of it, a solution will probably not appear here. Ishdarian 08:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's to be expected. It's ANI. But let's see the likely outcomes here:

1. Nothing. We haven't the power at ANI to formally rebuke an editor for messing up; a time-limited block would be pointless and punitive; and the editor has already apologised.
2. Involuntary desysopping. We can't actually do that either, it would be wildly OTT for a one-off of relatively limited damage (the block, wrong as it was, was reversed in two hours) and there's no precedent for it, but the usual ANI dramamongers are calling for it.
3. Voluntary desysopping. After Fastily's retirement, maybe folk think that hounding admins into retirement on ANI is a worthwhile tactic. We probably want to do everything possible not to encourage this.

The is pretty much unanimous consensus that Tiptoey screwed up here, that there are problems with that article which require a good deal of judgement when handing out blocks, and that Andy didn't do anything wrong regarding that article. He's been unblocked. There is no longer any immediate need for further administrative action here, and ANI is absolutely the last place that a proper analysis of how to prevent this happening again should take place. So I don't see that there's any point in keeping this open longer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The one thing about this that bothers me is the plain acknowledgement that pretty much unanimous consensus that Tiptoey screwed up here, and the attitude is basically: "oh well, hopefully he won't make any more mistakes". This person is entrusted with quite a bit of responsibility, and all of this certainly destroys any trust that I have in him. Arbcom is most certainly not going to do anything about this, since he's (heavily) associated with them. The completely dismissive attitude that Tiptoey has is completely understandable here, considering all of the protection that he obviously has. So, is this guy protected, and untouchable?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoey is not untouchable. We can make the "oh well, hopefully he won't make any more mistakes" a bit more formal as the official closure of this thread. Then if this happens again, we can go to ArbCom, point to this discussion and the new incident. Then 1 + 1 = desysopping by ArbCom. ArbCom won't protect anyone when presented with a clear cut case, that would undermine their credibility and may lead to ArbCom being abolished (obviously, if many editors and Admins get fed up with ArbCom, ArbCom cannot exert its authority on this project). Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems like empty rhetoric. I've already outlined what we could do here. In reality, the "do nothing" option carries a significant amount of baggage in terms of grudges community memory, and if screwups occur in future this will inevitably be taken into account. We don't really have any "slap on the wrist" remedies of any formality below ArbCom. We've gone without such for a decade. ANI is not the place to discuss introducing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

IRC

I've been informed that this block germinated from an IRC discussion. Is that accurate? Can we get logs, please? Hipocrite (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

? So somebody invoked the sneaky "off the record old pals act" to consider administrative action which turned out to be a travesty of a decision to block a good faith editor? Block them both for the same time that ATG was blocked so that their record is tarred to the same degree. Shameful. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Worrying indeed. How were you 'informed'? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Fluffernutter#Question - there is no diff on wiki. - Youreallycan 14:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This puts the whole thing in an entirely different light. Given that Fluffernutter (who had previously edited the article - reverting POV-pushing - but had at no point attempted to engage in the ongoing talk-page discussions) not only instigated the block, but then chose to repeat the false assertions regarding edit-warring first on my talk page, and then in this discussion, without making her prior involvement clear, I have to call for the scope of this discussion to be extended to Fluffernutter's bad-faith actions, which clearly precipitated the affair, and have led to much of the subsequent discord. Regardless of the merits of Tiptoety as an admin, Wikipedia clearly doesn't need self-serving shit-stirrers like Fluffernutter. Or if it does, it can do without me, and hand over article content to the SPAs, magic teapot salesmen, and bleach-gluggers. Seth Finkelstein, in a somewhat toxic depiction of Wikipedia in The Guardian, once described it as "a poorly-run bureaucracy with the group dynamics of a cult". [12] On the evidence presented here, he was right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes - a user that had only reverted and not attempted discussion or posted to the article talkpage (User:Fluffernutter asked another admin off wiki to take action against users that had done all the things that User:Fluffernutter had not. The admin then took action and almost unanimous is that action was badly wrong (all reverted by other admins)- what a pile of trash this place is sometimes - the admin (User:Tiptoety) couldn't even apologize without being 'upity'. - and this is all we know ... what relating went on between them that encouraged User:Tiptoety to make this poor judgment, we don't know. .. personally, imo - they are both very poor administrators and I didn't support either of them at RFA and I still don't, and for such disruption as this, I support removing the bit from both of them. Good faith users need to know that they will not be abused by such poor administration using off wiki requests as this sorry episode. Youreallycan 15:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page and I would ask that people please stop conflating "asked for another admin to look at the article" and "ordered a henchman to do exactly what I wanted so I could pull the strings and secretly take over Wikipedia." One of those happened; the other didn't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You should do your business on wiki then - In that aspect you failed completely. What admin action did you think was required then, blocking of the sockpuppets ?- Why didn't you attempt any on wiki or on talkpage discussion? - Youreallycan 16:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All he did was ping an uninvolved admin to look at the issue. This is perfectly normal and IRC is probably the fastest way to find an admin. That's why the Admin channel exists on IRC in the first place.

N419BH

16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was an editorial issue, there was no urgency. Leaky Caldron 16:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Never said there was. He pinged an admin to look into it. The admin who did utilized their judgement and blocked three people. Two of those people, in hindsight, shouldn't have been blocked. They were unblocked and the admin offered his apologies. Said apologies were rejected and now we have this dramafest at ANI and on ATG's talkpage.

N419BH

16:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@N419 "the fastest way to find an admin." you said. Sounds like urgency to me. Leaky Caldron 17:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:N419BH - Your intense involvement out of nowhere editing is inexplicable imo - others have questioned in this thread, who are you a sock of - are you related to User:Fluffernutter in any way, are you a sock-puppet of User:Russavia ? Youreallycan 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• - Why should an admin that is involved in editing (only reverts) the article but has not made a single attempt to discuss the issue on wiki or on the talkpage ask another admin off wiki to have a look and take action? - Youreallycan 16:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see a "non-editorial only" restriction in point two of meta:IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Guidelines. The channel is allowed for open requests to review actions or situations on-wiki. I also don't see Tiptoety claiming off-wiki consensus as a grounds for the block. He took full responsibility for his actions and did not claim to be representing a decision made off-wiki. More specifically, it was Fluff's choice to ask anywhere he desired for an independent review. Talk page, IRC, email, WikiReview, etc. MBisanz ^talk 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• One of the primary issues is that User:Fluffernutter's off wiki IRCAdmin request was his first and only attempt at anything other that reverting - that is not how its supposed to work - the resulting administrative action by the responder User:Tiptoety was below the standard required of an administrator - Youreallycan 16:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why? As I've said, I don't see a specific ordering of "You must post on the talk page before you can request a review privately" in any guideline or description, but I haven't read them all in exhaustive detail. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dude, your defending the indefensible - you go to the talkpage if you have issues - its the primary good faith location - in this case it didn't happen at all - You are defending a user (User:Fluffernutter) whose only input on wiki was to revert - no discussion in any way at all and whose actions resulting in this disruption. - Youreallycan 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm defending the ability to ask for an independent review in any broad-based forum. Just because something is the primary means to do it does not mean other means are unacceptable. If it was unacceptable, there would be a specific page describing talk page primacy and explaining how and when to seek other forums (Like noticeboards, listservs, IRC, etc.) MBisanz ^talk 17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bollocks. What the hell are article talk pages supposed to be for then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• See
  here. They are one of at least three options for editors wishing to discuss an article. MBisanz ^talk
  17:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• IRC and email should be considered after things already seem to not be going anywhere on the talk page. If it was done in this case instead of engaging the other involved editor(s) first, I have to agree with Leaky Cauldron at the top of this section, who refers to this as an "off the record old pals act". That is precisely what this looks like. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:21, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• They should, but I don't see a rule saying they must. It's like the difference between getting a rename and abandoning an old account. You should get a rename, but it isn't prohibited that you just register a new account. MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, if we are going to regard off-Wiki communications as valid here, how are we going to prove that there wasn't any discussion going on where an 'edit-war' is being alleged? (Not that this is relevant in this case, considering the fact that the discussion was going on on the talk page). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you mean, how will we know of the neutrality of the off-Wiki communication, then by the declarations of the participating parties, other parties present, past records, etc. MBisanz ^talk 17:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• So where are the 'declarations' regarding this particular bogus block then? I've not seen any? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• User_talk:Fluffernutter#Question looks sufficient to me. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• That isn't a 'declaration', it is self-serving spin - and repeats the lie that I was involved in edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There doesn't need to be rule expressly prohibiting this in order to question the action. We examine these things on a case-by-case basis. I'm glad there's no rule for it, and I also think in this case it was inappropriate. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:29, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Here's a crazy idea - why not log the IRC channels so when these types of things happen, at least the harmed parties can see what was said and who was involved. I'm sure the knowledge that there are logs will improve the tone and general behaviour there. I think the last time this was suggested, there were threats to indef block anyone who posted IRC logs on-wiki, but perhaps people have matured since then... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors have been threatened with physical violence for suggesting that IRC be logged.[13] I don't think there's a lot of maturity in those parts. Skinwalker (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I understand that you are royally pissed at being blocked, and the consensus is supportive of the notion that the block was flawed. (I don't know whether that helps to mollify, or adds fuel to the fire.) You've received an apology, which was both belated, and perfunctory. You've stated, I think, that you aren't looking for a desysop. Can you identify what you would describe as a satisfactory outcome?

As a mild tangent, I glanced at your block log, and it looks long, but I think appearances are deceiving. I suspect the community is not disposed to expunging block records, but this looks like a good example where it may be warranted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is Tiptoety and Fluffernutter complying with

WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". And doing it here, with full disclosure of what exactly was said, and what actions either of them took before the block was made. Did Fluffernutter check the talk page history before contacting Tiptoety? Did Tiptoety check it? Only when we know what happened can we decide whether any further action is required - as I've said before, Tiptoety's edit record seems to suggest a reluctance to engage in talk page dialogue, which may indicate that he/she would be unwise to engage in admin actions beyond his/her usual fields: immediate reverts and warnings, checkuser matters etc, without taking a little more care. Fluffernutter needs likewise to accept that a more honest approach over this issue might have prevented much of the acrimony - and ensure in future to make clear any prior involvement in issues she is commenting on: we really need more transparency here. There is an ongoing discussion regarding clarifying/revising Wikipedia:Edit warring policy (see Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#slow burn edit warring and lack of warnings), which should address the matter, and hopefully, make this sort of thing less likely to arise again. And yes, I'd like the block struck from the record - particularly as some admins apparently seem to think that the existence of one block is sufficient reason to impose another. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 21:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Without understanding precisely how it would work, I would oppose expungement of blocks. Such a thing would be contrary to the practice of documenting just about everything we do and everything we undo. That said, at the moment, Andy's unblock has this comment: "General concensus seems to be that a block was not warranted". I would favor something more official, some agreed-upon designation for an unjustified block such that it would not only be clear (the comment is kind of mild) that the block was unjustified but also that policy prohibits it from being used against the editor for any purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So, in summary, this is yet another IRC failure, where one IRC bud asked another IRC bud to block a guy for him and he did it? Why are the buds still admins, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, can you just fucking stop wailing about IRC? 50.22.206.179 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind logging in? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the IP, but I will echo the IP's request. If you'd bother to actually read what Fluffernutter wrote, she said she just asked for review and didn't give directives for what to do. When you're an admin, this happens all the time; look at my talkpage for the number of instances I've been asked to look at Indian caste articles. That it happened on IRC (which incidentally, I really only am using for one very specific purpose, and have no intention of using it once that's fulfilled) doesn't change anything except the venue. Or is your insistence because you're

running out of glue? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be a deadhorse if bad blocks and bad ideas didn't keep emanating from the IRCbuds month after month after month without any accountability. Why should I believe Fluffernutter, exactly, given that I have approximately zero trust from him related to the last IRCbud issue, where one of the buds threatened to make me breath through a straw for logging? Trust, but verify. Where are the logs, like the logs that exist of your talk page? They're kept secret, because IRCbuds like those taking action here would be disinfected by sunlight. Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the block (or in other cases deletions, protections, edits, etc.), then it is irrelevant whether or not it was discussed on IRC. The admin is always accountable for their actions, regardless of off-wiki communications - we all know that. If it was a bad block, it was a bad block. If it was a good block, it was a good block. IRC or any off-wiki communication has no effect on that, ever. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"The admin is always accountable for their actions". Really - it doesn't look like it in this case. Regardless of where the communication took place, we still have had no proper explanation of what occurred, and Fluffernutter's actions in instigating the problem, but not even acknowledging this when trying to justify it (by repeating the same false claims first on my talk page, and then here). I am having second thoughts about whether desysoping might be worth looking at after all, given Fluffernutter's continuing refusal to explain her actions and justify them, per

WP:ADMINACCT. Or are admins actually free to ignore policy when it suits their own personal interest? Her refusal to adequately explain how the events occurred is a violation of policy, beyond question, as was her non-disclosure of prior involvement when commenting on events. Why should anyone have any confidence in such an admin? I certainly don't... AndyTheGrump (talk

) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As someone who's normally satisfied by an action when I "flutternut" at the end, I must agree that going to IRC was a sub-optimal path to take. While there's some spirited shuck-and-jive to defend IRC above, it's feeble. Use on-wiki first: Nothing on the article talk page is a bad look, using IRC instead of ANI is a bad look. Please note that the emphasis is on "look," since we can't know what actually took place on IRC. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk

) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable that as currently written the 3RR rules can be interpreted in a way that leads to blocks being applied without an attempt to resolve things in a more amicable manner. That isn't to say that I regard these particular blocks as ones that I would have done. But I would like to propose that as a response the the incident above, we shift the 3RR rules to a presumption that perceived breaches should usually be responded to with dialogue first and blocks as a last resort. So I've drafted a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#slow_burn_edit_warring_and_lack_of_warnings. ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI is a fucking joke

It is.Self-serving shit-stirrers like Fluffernutter can drag contributors over the coals here, but can admins actually be held to account? Clearly not. Lie through your teeth, pretend it never happened, and never admit to being wrong...

Give me one good reason why, after this ridiculous display of utter contempt for anything but her own ego, I should bother to continue to give a toss about Wikipedia? Clearly pompous self-serving amateur bureaucratics is more important than actually worrying about whether articles are sourced to anything other than snake-oil salesmen, tinfoil-hat merchants, and promoters of drain-cleaner as a cure for AIDS. "Oooh look, there's something that looks vaguely like an edit war" (if you can't be bothered to actually look at the evidence). Find some poor clueless admin-gnome to block everyone, then pile in afterwards with more accusations of editwarring that utterly ignore the fact that by any objective measure, you have been engaged in ten times as much 'edit warring' (by the dubious standards of the block) as the persons accused, and with no mention at all of the fact that you instigated it. Then walk away as if it was none of your business. Well Fluffernutter, let me make clear that the only reason I'm not describing you using a fine old Anglo-Saxon word for the female reproductive orifice is that I have more respect for AN/I (and the relevant organ, and the vast majority of those that have one) than you do. If Wikipedia needs you, I think it can do without me. Why I ever bothered to get involved in this ridiculous cult in the first place, I'm not sure... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your block was overturned very quickly. Tiptoety was responsible for it, not Fluffernutter. Carry on in this vein though, and you'll get yourself a different kind of block. Why don't you get over it and move on? You're not doing yourself any favours attacking people like this. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 03:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact saying that you would compare someone to a certain orifice, but you're not going to for whatever stupid reason, is pretty much the same as actually doing it. For shame. Pathetic insults like that should be beneath you. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 03:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to comment, please address the issue. Now is not the time to put on let's all be nice to each other hats. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am addressing the above issue. The above issue of Andy ranting quite nastily about another user. Sorry, but that's not okay, and it's hardly going to help the situation, is it? ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 03:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Give me one good reason why [...] I should bother to continue to give a toss about Wikipedia?" -> if the above rant is an example of your ordinary behavior and attitude here (and I can't tell as I've never had occasion to interact with you), then it would be contrary to everybody's interest to give you any reason to remain around here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't all for naught. There appears to be consensus that the overturn was good and the original block bad. ANI can't make an admin admit wrongdoing, but when can you ever force someone to do that in life? All you can do about admins behaving badly is get the action overturned (which you did), and beyond that, show a pattern. At least you've brought this incident to light so it can be used that way in the future, if it ever needs to be. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:38, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• Re: this thread is its entirety: To quote Data: [14]. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)