Admin watch, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes Options

[Castle Rock]

I don't have "trolling socks", or any "socks" for that matter except the nice woolen ones I put on my feet before inserting my feet into my shoes.

So I guess you can just bite me, shitboy.

Haha go fuck yourself. You even believe your own lies.

[Somey]

Personally, I'd have to say that anyone using the F-word more than once in a single post is probably feeling a bit too emotional to be posting anything at that particular moment... that sort of thing makes posts less readable and distracts from the point. In essence, it's self-defeating.

For example, the most significant paragraph in one of Mr. Queeran's posts earlier could have been re-written like this:

This instance is just another example of how dishonest admins cover up for each other, and use "wikilawyering" to do it. These people don't really want to see Wikipedia cleaned up, and will never consider the possibility that they were wrong - they don't even want to see anyone attempt to point out when another admin made a mistake, unless they go through some sort of elaborate groveling appeasement ritual first. I went through this nonsense when I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet, for no reason other than an overzealous, self-gratification-obsessed admininstrator decided they needed someone new to abuse in order to "extend" an arbcom block. Subsequently, I watched the same thing happen to at least a dozen other people, and of course, any attempt to fix this sort of thing fails miserably, thanks to people like you.

Much nicer!

Anyway, if this continues, we'll probably have to treat it as a thread-derailment attempt and split it out into the tar pit.

Besides, the page in question has been "speedy-kept," so it looks like they may actually try it, though they've attempted things like this before without much success. Still, you never know, and there's no reason to immediately assume that the majority of WP admins are going to get together and undermine this latest effort to impose some sort of accountability.

I'd say give 'em at least 4 or 5 days, then make the assumption.

[Kato]

...we'll probably have to treat it as a thread-derailment attempt and split it out into the tar pit.

Sooner rather than later, please.

[Moulton]

See also Narcissistic Wounding.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Sat 3rd January 2009, 12:36am

[Random832]

Speaking of thread derailment...

[Kato]

Renamed "AdminReview" from AdminWatch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=261072261

[Anonymous editor]

link

[Kato]

Tony seems to have got himself into a bitter dispute with the aforementioned MBisanz (T-C-L-K-R-D) - ostensibly about some date delinking thing, but it was MBisanz who tried to strangle Tony's AdminWatch / AdminReview project at birth recently, and Tony reckons that MBisanz has more sinister motives to discredit him before it can be launched.

MBisanz is an occasional member here, but is prone to some silly antics. Remember him removing Brandt's comments from a BLP discussion page, and then running to the admins noticeboard to tell tales on PrivateMusings who rightfully restored them?

Why is MBisanz so desperately trying to scupper Tony's AdminWatch project now?

Anyway, here is Tony on some arbitration page, appealing to the court regarding MBisanz's latest slur attempt against him:

[MBisanz's] "involvement" concerns his leading an (unsuccessful) attempt to delete my AdminReview page, and the potential for conflict of interest in attempting to slur me in this judicial context by quoting me from that page he tried to delete, representing a comment I made which has nothing to do with either this case or incivility. I believe that both diffs should be withdrawn immediately: one as irrelevant; the other as in bad faith with potential conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[MBisanz]

MBisanz is an occasional member here, but is prone to some silly antics. Remember him removing Brandt's comments from a BLP discussion page, and then running to the admins noticeboard to tell tales on PrivateMusings who rightfully restored them?

I was not the person who removed Brandt's comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204742064

[Somey]

I was not the person who removed Brandt's comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204742064

Probably an easy-enough mistake to make, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204742064

Still, you've supported tougher blocking rules for BLP vandals and changing the AfD default to "delete" for BLP's, so perhaps this isn't an area for which you deserve bashing.

I was looking at some of your comments on User talk:Tony1/AdminReview/Archive_2 (T-H-L-K-D), and it looks like most of your stated objections are fairly reasonable, though based primarily on hypothetical scenarios that probably wouldn't come up very often. It seems like something rather nasty must have happened to cause you to somewhat-suddenly label the proposal an "attack page" and try to get it deleted...

So what was it, exactly?

[Kato]

MBisanz is an occasional member here, but is prone to some silly antics. Remember him removing Brandt's comments from a BLP discussion page, and then running to the admins noticeboard to tell tales on PrivateMusings who rightfully restored them?

I was not the person who removed Brandt's comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204742064

No? Well here's you running to the admins noticeboard to snitch on Privatemusings for restoring Brandt's uncontroversial comments last year. That was pretty low and silly by anyone's standards, MBisanz. Poor show. You need to chill out and leave people alone a lot more - your judgement is suspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204788113

== Privatemusing posting for banned user ==

At [[Wikipedia_talk:OptOut]] {{User|Privatemusings}} has reinserted comments made by banned user Mr. Brandt. Mr. Brandt confirmed on WR after having been blocked here that they were indeed his comments. Privatemusings should already know better than to post for a banned user and to revert the removal of a banned users comments. Further, one of the principles in his [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Decorum|arbcom]] was that users should not game the system, proxying of an unbanned user for a banned user would seem to be just that. [[User:MBisanz]] 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[Kato]

Tony is still plugging away.

One important potential problem they'll need to take into account is the "Moulton Factor". This is when a beady eyed veteran of online buffoonery makes a complaint about some perceived injustice - and then drags multiple parties into an excruciating chess game of ever more depressing exchanges with no resolution in sight. A kind of online mental Escher nightmare that saps the life of anyone who gets involved - and is certainly capable of downing a project like Tony's.

I'm not sure Tony is up to speed with just how difficult certain accusers can be.

[Moulton]

One important potential problem they'll need to take into account is the "Moulton Factor". This is when a beady eyed veteran of online buffoonery makes a complaint about some perceived injustice - and then drags multiple parties into an excruciating chess game of ever more depressing exchanges with no resolution in sight. A kind of online mental Escher nightmare that saps the life of anyone who gets involved - and is certainly capable of downing a project like Tony's.

Yes, we've written peer-reviewed articles about "lunatic social drama" and we've inflicted atrocious comic operas on the hapless players in these post-modern, pre-apocalyptic, ex-punk, cyberspace theaters of the absurd.

Is it any wonder we are Jimbo's worst nightmare?

[Kato]

The challenge is whether anyone in the Wikisphere can do anything of this nature without it turning into a "lunatic social drama" - without inspiring more of the customary pile-ons, wild accusations, bullying, public humiliation, frantic antagonism and so on.

From my reading, Tony is perhaps the best placed figure to pull this off, because he seems to have a tangible purpose to everything he does. He's not just some bored internet addict.

[Kato]

Tony's now taking a look at the Policies for Administrators as part of his Clean-up Crusade, and finding holes in the wording.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...lved.22_wording

Having brought up the burning issue of "Involved Parties", which is yet another screwed up shambles of WP:Hypocrisy, he's getting little traction from the Admins who seem to like the status quo as it is - no surprise there.

No surprise as well that it is the disastrous User:JzG who is on hand to respond critically to Tony's changes - with the usual Wiki-clichés, Doublespeak and Silly Walk :

We seem to be trying to legislate Clue. There is no form of wording that will make a determined POV-pusher or wikilawyer shut up, because there is nothing we can do to make that happen short of banning them, and even that often takes a year or more to finally get rid of them. I've only seen one thread recently on AN about this, and the result was so obvious that the complainant was rapidly sent away with a flea in their ear. Some admins will go to ANI or IRC for a block on an IP that is vandalising their talk page in retaliation for a block or other action, others will just handle it as part of the same block or action. As long as the vandalism is low-grade and blindingly obvious then there's really no need to have additional process or hurdles, and if anything the current wording could be shortened for clarity. In the end I think Mr Sanger had it right: "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." Let's wind back m:CREEP and keep things simple. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Actually, if you wanted to "wind back instruction creep", you'd conduct a good cleansing of all of the redundancy, repetition and poor organisation on this policy page. I think I could probably present you with a draft that says the same things in two-thirds of the space, but is much clearer and easier to access than the current text (for admins and non-admins). I presume that you're not against the cleaning up of such an important text ...
2. Why would you want to "ban" a wikilawyering editor? That appears to be what you're suggesting. Wouldn't it be better to silence them by gaining a little rappart, engaging, and at worst ignoring? Banning should be used as a last resort, according to the policy.
3. In any case, this is policy, and the wording really does count, especially as admin actions can be surrounded by highly emotive situations. It is in all our interests for the wording to be as simple as possible, with the right level of detail (which is a problem in quite a few places). The page is not at all in a good state (it reminds me of the higgledy-piggledy ad-hoc build-on architecture of some older hospitals). Is there an inherent resistance to suggesting, discussing and implementing improvements? Tony (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

The vote on keeping AdminWatch is a fairly good indicator of who are decent
admins (voted to keep), and who are the bastards (delete).

Sceptre, MBisanz, MZMcBride, Redvers, Scarian and (of course) JzG all want it deleted.....

Those guys tend to vote as a bunch, whenever something comes up
that tries to shine some light on their secret dirty tricks.

Dollar says someone high up in the cabal will delete it, and nobody will have the nerve
to bring it back. Just a matter of time.

[LaraLove]

Dollar says someone high up in the cabal will delete it, and nobody will have the nerve
to bring it back. Just a matter of time.

You've got a bet. I disagree with your prediction.

[everyking]

The vote on keeping AdminWatch is a fairly good indicator of who are decent
admins (voted to keep), and who are the bastards (delete).

Sceptre, MBisanz, MZMcBride, Redvers, Scarian and (of course) JzG all want it deleted.....

Those guys tend to vote as a bunch, whenever something comes up
that tries to shine some light on their secret dirty tricks.

Dollar says someone high up in the cabal will delete it, and nobody will have the nerve
to bring it back. Just a matter of time.

You know, it's surprising that Scarian didn't learn anything from his own little encounter with Jimbo's wrath. You have to be pretty hard-headed to not rethink things after something like that happens to you.

[MBisanz]

Sceptre, MBisanz, MZMcBride, Redvers, Scarian and (of course) JzG all want it deleted.....

Those guys tend to vote as a bunch, whenever something comes up
that tries to shine some light on their secret dirty tricks.

Umm, did you miss:

RFC/Sceptre I also de-rollbackered him and supported banning him at various points

and

RFAR/Sarah Palin MZMcBride and I violently disagreed

and

RFA/Enigmaman 2 Scarian and I disagreeing

clearly we all get along smashingly well.

[Anonymous editor]

The vote on keeping AdminWatch is a fairly good indicator of who are decent
admins (voted to keep), and who are the bastards (delete).

Sceptre, MBisanz, MZMcBride, Redvers, Scarian and (of course) JzG all want it deleted.....

Those guys tend to vote as a bunch, whenever something comes up
that tries to shine some light on their secret dirty tricks.

Dollar says someone high up in the cabal will delete it, and nobody will have the nerve
to bring it back. Just a matter of time.

Sceptre hasn't been an admin for years.

You know, it's surprising that Scarian didn't learn anything from his own little encounter with Jimbo's wrath. You have to be pretty hard-headed to not rethink things after something like that happens to you.

What does Jimbo's power trip have to do with Admin watch?

RFC/Sceptre I also de-rollbackered him and supported banning him at various points

Ah, memories. Bedford is such a jackass.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Fri 23rd January 2009, 5:46am