QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 15th June 2010, 2:15pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 15th June 2010, 2:12pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th June 2010, 5:01pm)
Salmon of Doubt remains an unsolved mystery to me.
Other-wiki identity is a mystery, perhaps, but the agenda was not.
His agenda was very clear. He said, in plain English, that he was a "suicide bomber" sent there to take me out (and willing to die in the process).
So what did they do?
They made him an Admin.
Yes. His mission was clear. His identity even might be under a reasonable suspicion. But so what? It's completely moot. I almost hope he dares to edit again, so he'd create more evidence. But that's just a toot. If I cared enough I"d go over what evidence there is.
But I don't.
Yes, he was made an administrator. And the harm done was? That action completely defused what could have become quite another cause of disruption, and that, without it, could have led to him possibly becoming an administrator without certain crucial protections.
Point is, it worked. He became an admin and all his protestations of how much he wanted to help with his expertise proved to be totally fluff. The whole thing is just another piece of history, showing how wikis function and don't function.
Moulton, it seems you think that becoming an administrator is a reward. Some reward! Perhaps you should be an admin on Wikiversity, you might make a good one, except for the fact that it is dull, boring work, most of the time, and if you use your tools to do what you might *want* to do, you are, practically by definition, abusive, and you are either then becoming part of the dark side, or you'll be defending your tools, big mess, not worth it.
Very easy to sit back and take potshots at admins who don't do it the way you think they should. Very easy, and far short of showing deep understanding. There are reasons for the structure that exists, as defective as it is. That's usually true for social structures that last more than a few months....
Being an admin on Wikiversity means that I get to deal with image copyvio, absolutely my favorite activity. I get to make delete decisions on articles that are probably a complete waste of everyone's time. But maybe one isn't. Any Wikipedia admin knows what it's like, and it's much worse on Wikipedia. There is a reason why admins become abusive! The structure leads them to lose patience, plus, of course, it also selects for certain personality problems.
Salmon of Doubt wrote that he could fix certain technical problems. SBJohnny called his bluff, so to speak. Okay, fix them. Let me watch! It's a wiki, after all, if he blocks someone improperly, all SBJ would have to do is unblock and go straight to meta for desysop, he asked for, and got, the right to do that. It was practically like a convict seeking to be a trusty. Sure, you can sweep the yard. Here's a broom. And one false move, notice the guards on the catwalk with automatic weapons?
Thanks for volunteering, sucker!
In fact, Salmon of Doubt did practically nothing as an admin. He just stirred up a very obvious and visible fuss as an ordinary user. Anyone could have done it, and you were vulnerable. I know whom you suspect, since you've told me, and, yes, that editor has done similar stuff elsewhere, and that the user hasn't been indeffed is just a matter of how long it takes the wheels to turn. It's amazing how long it takes sometimes. He has powerful friends, but they get ground up eventually too....
He knew he was being watched. You can't hide on Wikiversity like you can on Wikipedia. I can easily review every single edit every day on WV, and every admin action -- and my actions are similarly visible.