Admin watch, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes Options

[Peter Damian]

Apologies if this is already on another thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/AdminWatch

The talk page is quite funny

[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)

[Milton Roe]

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." Guy (Help!) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A paradox. For if "Mr. Sanger" was right, how is it that he himself was shown the door not long thereafter? And then, how could he BE right? Does it not boggle your mind to think on it, Guy?

And what are we doing reading old Sanger essays, anyway? And giving him the respectful "Mr." (even if he is by now a Ph.D.) That all sounds very sneaky and subversive.

You subversive, you.

[the fieryangel]

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." Guy (Help!) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A paradox. For if "Mr. Sanger" was right, how is it that he himself was shown the door not long thereafter? And then, how could he BE right? Does it not boggle your mind to think on it, Guy?

And what are we doing reading old Sanger essays, anyway? And giving him the respectful "Mr." (even if he is by now a Ph.D.) That all sounds very sneaky and subversive.

You subversive, you.

Well, look who's talking, oh, he who uses a fake WP user name...