View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:30 am




Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
GiantSnowman 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1917
Reply with quote
In yet another glaring example of how there is simply not one ounce of sense in how Wikipedia governs itself, we are now treated to the hilarious sight of the mighty ArbCom returning an Administrator to the pedia after one of their patented conduct investigations, with a series of restrictions that make it blindingly obvious that they should quite simply be considered either too incompetent or too untrustworthy to be an Administrator, and arguably cannot really be considered a worthwhile editor.

This is quite possibly the longest and most convoluted outcome for a single party that has ever been seen in an Arbitration Case......
Quote:
GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review
1.2) GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in "cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. GiantSnowman is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:

1. He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction

2. He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings

3. He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community

4. He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines

5. He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin

6. He may not use MassRollback.js

Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.
With the exception of a few highly toxic Unblockables, you never see the wider Wikipedia community choose to construct such a humiliating and embarrassing set of complex restrictions, they instead choose to conclude the editor is just too much of a problem to bother with, and ban them. Ironically, a big part of this consideration is claimed to be a concern for not wasting the valuable time of Administrators.

Unsurprisingly, it is the Arbitrators with a long history of aiding and abetting the Unblockables, who defeated the first suggestion of the case filer, to simply desysop Giant Snowman for "judgment below the standard Wikipedia requires from an administrator.", arising from evidence of "errors that are frequent, sustained, and serious [which] involve multiple tools (rollback, block) as well as ineffective communication (with newbies and experienced editors)."

NewYorkBrad, SilkTork, Opabina Regalis, Worm, Doug Weller and Premeditated Chaos all found a range of excuses for how and why Giant Snowman should not face what is not exactly a life altering consequence, being denied the opportunity to continue in a role they are clearly not fit to perform, my personal favourite being the fact he got credit for cooperating with the authorities. And this (disputed) idea he didn't know what he was doing was wrong, because nobody told him, and nobody objected. Dumbass. Still, as we have seen many times, the torture that lies ahead should he want to test the boundaries and people want to enforce these sanctions, might be fitting punishment.

Unbelievably, they settled on that sanction after considering six different alternatives, all much less complex and therefore easier to enforce, which is another stark reminder of how differently the rehabilitation of an Administrator is treated compared to ordinary editors. Again, it is only really the Unblockables who are allowed six go-arounds in the same episode of attempted dispute resolution, as a desperate alternative to simply banning them as a time sink. And obviously, the threat here was not losing him as an editor, merely the loss of his rather questionable services as an Administrator.

Despite the contrast with how they deal with such things for ordinary editors (where ignorance is certainly no defence), the community at large is apparently fine with this outcome. The tiny few who even cared to comment on the outcome, are only pondering the precise meaning and implication of each restriction, perhaps mindful of the attempted enforcement scenario mentioned. So much for "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy ', of course. Pfftt.

That total lack of condemnation of this outcome, is just another example of how all those people who focus solely on Wikipedia Administrators or the mighty ArbCom as the root of all Wikipedia dysfunction, are flat wrong. It is a product of the entire community, a result of all their shared lack of values and integrity. And quite obviously, this absolutely fucked up situation has nothing whatsoever to do with anything the WMF does (outside of their policy of non-intervention in matters of routine governance), who, as bad as they are, would surely not retain a staff member with this many issues. At least not unless they were critical to the mission.

It is admirable that they want to retain Administrators who are remorseful and have understandable reasons for their repeated and obvious failures and they can identify a potential route back to being seen as fully competent, and maybe the Wikipedia community would be better off if they took that approach to ordinary editors. Putting aside whether that is a genuine reflection of what has happened here, it is worth noting that right up to the wire, he was disputing the facts of the case and the wisdom of the remedies, was practically demanding credit for having cooperated (on the basis it would prevent his demotion), and was making overt threats that if he were desysopped, he had no faith he could ever be promoted again, and would simply leave Wikipedia rather than trying to be a normal editor. Obviously, there is nothing about any of that conduct that gives reassurance he is a valuable asset worth retaining, or is ever likely to be rehabilitated. It reinforces the impression formed in the case, that he is an emotionally unstable wikilawyer.

GiantSnowman, you are an embarassment. If you had any sense of honour and integrity, you would simply resign. But being a Wikipedia Administrator, it is basically a given that you do not posses such qualities.


Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:09 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 1 post ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.