William Connolley (and Polargeo) vs Lar, Global warming wars Options

[Cla68]

RfC time. I take it WMC did not appreciate being called on his actions.

[Moulton]

Salmon of Doubt remains an unsolved mystery to me.

[Abd]

Salmon of Doubt remains an unsolved mystery to me.

Other-wiki identity is a mystery, perhaps, but the agenda was not.

[Moulton]

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.

[Abd]

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.

[Moulton]

Moulton, it seems you think that becoming an administrator is a reward.

It's more like giving an angry child a gun (and telling him not to shoot anyone in anger).

I dunno if SoD learned anything, but I doubt it.

[Abd]

Moulton, it seems you think that becoming an administrator is a reward.

It's more like giving an angry child a gun (and telling him not to shoot anyone in anger).

I dunno if SoD learned anything, but I doubt it.

SoD learned that he couldn't outfox SBJohnny. I don't care of SoD learned anything, particularly. He was not there to learn.

"Adminship" is not like giving an angry child a gun, per se, rather adminship given to an immature and angry person is like that. Except, Moulton, it's not a gun and the tools don't allow the child to kill anyone. The problem is lack of supervision. There is nothing wrong with giving admin tools to children on a wiki (not generally, anyway beyond issues of what might become visible to them, etc., I'd want to see parental permission, for example, under the age of consent, and maybe that should be the limit; but maturity isn't automatic with age. I'm living proof!)

These immature administrators on Wikipedia are mostly unsupervised. That's not the case on Wikiversity. Any user who wants to know what's going on there, at this point, can look at Recent Changes. It's easy, there isn't all that much traffic. It's easy to review the logs and see what's been deleted and who has been blocked. If I screw up, I find, it's immediately seen and there is comment and helpful correction. SoD didn't have a chance, and if he'd decided to use those tools improperly, all it would have taken is one person noticing it and complaining. SBJohnny wasn't fooled. He called the bluff of SoD, in one of the more skillful and beautiful pieces of wikipolitics I've seen. Pure benefit, no down side, as long as he was around to watch and handle it. (That would have been the only defect, if he became unavailable.)

And when SoD announced he would be away for a while, SBJ asked him to check in the keys, if he didn't mind.... and if he'd minded, SBJ, I'm assuming, would have taken them anyway. He'd arranged prior consent to SBJ requesting tool return from a Steward, for that to be done. It really should be general for WV admins, with the "probationary custodianship" provision.

I wrote, in my RfA (custodian) there, that any action of mine as a probationary custodian could be reversed by any admin who supported my RfA, and that, if I did not keep this promise, I consented to being desysopped immediately by a bureaucrat on the request of any of these admins. There was a possible attempt to convert this into some kind of prejudice against non-admins which it surely wasn't. I've been explicit that admins have no superior rights except in acting as servants of consensus, which is only provisional and temporary.

This understanding, which was clear to me from early on at Wikipedia, as being the theory behind the adhocracy, I later found wasn't at all understood by many admins. There are quite a few who, based on what they've stated to ArbComm in various cases, should be desysopped based on the danger that they will act as they have claimed is legitimate, until they assure ArbComm they now understand recusal policy and will not violate it. Not a punishment for speech, rather a protection based on clear danger.

But ArbComm is terrified of offending the "critical volunteers." The fact is that there would be more volunteers than the project would need, *if* there were mentored adminship like that on Wikiversity. I see no reason not to do it on Wikipedia. There simply need to be rules for probationary admins, clear ones, and rules for mentorship, with assigned responsibility to watch and review a probationary admin's actions. That review needn't be by an admin, necessarily, but by a trusted member of the community, it's at least as important as the reliability of the admin himself or herself. It's like having watched articles: watched admins. An admin who doesn't want to be watched shouldn't be an admin. I can say, being watched at Wikiversity makes me feel much safer. If I screw up, someone will tell me, quickly. Gradually, that watching will fall away, I assume.

But every admin should have what I'd call a recall committee, a set of active admins who have the authority to immediately request the admin stop some action or class of actions. This would be explicitly accepted, with named admins, as part of the RfA. (They would not be hostile admins, to be sure, but would be those offering to mentor and being accepted in that role, and being responsible to, themselves, not be abusive in that.)

I also argued before ArbComm that any admin should, emergencies excepted, where different rules apply, recuse from using tools with respect to any user who requests it. That was thought preposterous, because recusal is often not understood.... If I block VandalOckSay, and VandalOcksay then asks -- or demands -- that I recuse, I don't therefore unblock! Rather, I make the evidence on which I blocked plain and clear and stand aside, agreeing to not consider reversal of my decision to be wheel-warring. Now, suppose VandalOckSay does this for three admins in a row, say. VandalOcksay remains blocked until a fourth one shows up. And what does this fourth admin do? Obviously, it depends on the evidence, but ... the most likely outcome is far from the victory for wikilawyering that was claimed would happen. VandalOckSay is indef blocked, quite likely.

That's with a large site. On smaller sites, one can't go that far, but an unblocking admin, if there is any reasonal objection to the editor's behavior, would set conditions for unblock that would address this. If the editor refuses to comply, or violates the agreement, that admin could block and recuse on request. Not a good idea for the user unless the user really does feel the admin is biased. And attacking a blocking admin on the basis of bias is absolutely not the way to get unblocked! Almost never works.