User:Crazynas/sandbox

Working Area

Consequently, coal balls are a good means of analyzing distribution of vegetation across wide ranges, providing evidence, for example, that "plants of the tropical belt were the same from the Ukraine to Oklahoma." [1]

Because what matters isn't whether its true, but that most scientists believe it is true. Truth value is simply not a part of the calculation in figuring out what to include. (an editor regarding V not T, yes it really is that contradictory).

Proposals by User:Crazynas

Proposed principles

Removal of Administrators

1) Administrators may be removed by Jimbo Wales, Stewards, or the Arbitration Committee. Bureaucrats have the technical ability to remove the sysop flag and have community consensus to do so in four narrowly defined situations: death or inactivity of the user, self-requested, or by official request of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wheel Wars

2) Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power struggles. Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause and careful thought. Unless there in an administrative emergency involving: actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a person if not acted upon, administrators should not preform the third (reversing the reversal) administrative action in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

adapted from Beeblebrox's first principle above.

Three Reverts

3) There is strong consensus that making more than three reverts on a page within 24 hours will lead to a 24 hour block for edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rollback in edit-wars

4) Rollback is a tool for maintenance, not content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involved

5) Administrators are expected not to use their tools in disputes they are involved in, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

High standard of conduct

6) Administrators are expected to be familiar with policies and guidelines, lead by example, and behave in a respectful manner with others. They must use their tools fairly and never as a way to gain advantage in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia Policies

7) Although Wikipedia does not employ hard and fast rules, polices are standards that all users should normally follow while retaining independent judgment and common sense. By policy it is impossible for the rules to prevent anyone from improving the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of Fact

Rates of Conflict

1) The editing war lasted for 21 minutes before a block, from 14:49-15:10. The blocking war was from 15:11-15:47, 36 minutes, 3 blocks and 2 unblocks. The wheel war was in the last half starting at 15:34, 13 minutes, 2 blocks and 1 unblock. There was a 3 hour, 21 minute break during which time Fred was blocked before Maxim's IAR desyop.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fred Bauder's actions were unbecoming, but not an emergency

2) Although they violated policies of edit warring, self-unblocking, wheel wars: Fred Bauder's actions did not constitute an emergency. They were not directly threatening other users, having any effect on the articlespace, or giving any indication that they had any dispute outside the specific project page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Boing! said Zebedee!'s blocked while involved

3) Boing! said Zebedee! inappropriately blocked Fred Bauder during an edit war they were involved in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Iridescent and Fut.Perf. wheel warred

4) Iridescent and Fut.Perf. wheel warred. The rationale for each block was legitimate but the actions taken had no binding effect and only caused further escalation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Maxim's actions did not benefit the project

5) Maxim's actions did not meet the maintenance or improvement exemption of IAR. The final block had remained in place for some time and there had been no further disruption to the project. They acted in good faith; however, bureaucrats have a strict standard for tool usage. Since there was no clear and present danger, the IAR is unsound.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Remedies

Fred Bauder is no longer an Administrator

1) For wheel warring, edit warring, and self-unblocking Fred Bauder is dsyopped. They may re-apply via a normal RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Boing! said Zebedee! is no longer an Administrator

2) For blocking while involved in a dispute, Boing! said Zebedee! is desyopped. They may re-apply via a normal RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Iridescent is no longer an Administrator

3) For wheel warring Iridescent is desyopped. They may re-apply via a normal RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fut.Perf is no longer an Administrator

4) For wheel warring Fut.Perf is desyopped. They may re-apply via a normal RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Maxim is no longer a Bureaucrat

5) For use of tools, without any clear and present danger existing to the project and outside policy, Maxim is no longer a bureaucrat. They may re-apply via a normal RFB at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence

ANI when closest to when Iri blocked FB

Two Tier Adminship

Administrator as a concept subsumes multiple sometimes conflicting ideas on wiki, the +sysop flag only being the most obvious. Although the party line is that adminship is no big deal and administrators are normal editors with a few extra buttons, the first (intentionally misquoted) statement in reality refers to specifically possessing the flag, and is not (as often construed) a reflection on the use of administrator tools, simply their possession.

This is my take on the perennial idea for admin-lite or Sysop on request. I've expanded this to three categories, on my tree theory of management:

• Moderators- my new, middle of the road
• Administrators- traditional sysops, still created the normal way, but with anticipated tightening of standards (900-1500)
• Advanced Permissions Holders(APHer's)- are identified to WMF, volunteers that provide the highest level of supervision on wiki. (50-100)(I recognize that this is unrealistic but it highlights the structure fully)

Moderators

A true no big deal designed for content and

Moderators would be promoted via:

• ('Crats) have the technical ability to promote.
• any user upon review could privately nominate the user to an APH('Crat), if the APH('Crat) agrees, the user is promoted with no discussion, moderation truly is no big deal.
• Moderators would serve at the discretion of the APH'ers('Crats) and could be removed by them at any time for misuse or inappropriate conduct (weather using the tools or not).

Features:

• Rollback, Reviewer, File Mover rights- inherited (note that Autopatrolled and Account creators are not automatically inherited)
• Semi-protect & unprotect pages
• View abuse filters marked as private (AFM granted with need)
• Revision Delete
• Löschen

Administrators

• Promoted via traditional methods

• All Moderator rights inherited
• Fully protect & unprotect, cascading, edit fully protected pages
• Admin block users, IP's (for open proxies etc.)
• Edit the MediaWiki namespace
• Block and Unblock users
• unblock self
• grant/revoke rollback, autopatrolled, account creator

APHers(new 'crats)

Promoted via Stewards

• Bureaucrat rights
  • can modify access for: Administrators, Bots, Bureaucrat, Moderators
• Checkuser rights
• Oversight rights

SHA

c431ffd3e779e0adb4ac1a71fbc90f29663be6e7 c431ffd3e779e0adb4ac1a71fbc90f29663be6e7

Random interesting templates and tidbits

Back to the TOP

Tidbits

Useful MOS Links

• WP:WORDS to watch
  • WP:WEASEL

Quotes

There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do.

There is no reason to continue here. RickK 04:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not leaving but it is interesting to consider and I think his words are as relevant now as six years ago.

• [2] - this is an interesting take, by a current arbiter on the 'admin problem'.

• [3] - Trusilver's take on not being an admin any more.

• "Trusilver's scruples are not consistent with the expectations of an administrator, and that he is too principled to suppress his principles for the sake of retaining the bit."Steve Smith (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC) -Arbcom motion to remove Trusilver's bit

• User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia self explanatory...

• My philosophy on administrators: We're not administrators. We're merely editors with a few extra buttons.User:Shirik

• Please also keep in mind that, short of truly egregious administrator behaviour (such as abusive socking, ban evasion, or unblocking oneself to take an administrative action against an opponent), it is nearly impossible for Arbcom to desysop someone short of the community requesting a case before the Committee. I am sure every arbitrator is aware of situations where desysopping would be the likely outcome should a case be brought, but unless someone in the community is willing to bring that case, our hands are pretty much tied. I don't think that's necessarily bad - Arbcom cannot maintain ongoing assessment of the quality of work of all 900 or so active administrators, and the community has pretty clearly indicated over time that it does not like Arbcom to "go looking" for cases, even to the point of concern about cases brought by arbitrators in their personal role. Risker (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[4]

• Never turn away an idea solely because of its source. Ever. That is an ugly, ugly road to go down, one that leads to utter stagnation and decay. If you disagree with the proposal on its own merits, then that's completely fine. God knows you won't be alone there, and nor should you be; reasoned opposition is the fundamental building block of dispute resolution, and by extension, civilization. But let your opposition stand on its own merits in turn; don't bring ugly partisan politics into it. Writ Keeper 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [5]

• Well, if you've been (correctly) taught not to cite Wikipedia, you're learning... Eventually you will probably come full circle and figure out what Wikipedia's valid functions are: a first step to further investigation of serious topics and a quick and easy way of learning correct answers to questions dealing with the mundane trivia of daily life. User:Carrite (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[6]

Misc

pageviews

Templates

Editorial Templates

{{cite web}}

{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=}}

{{cite journal}}

{{cite journal |author= |date= |year= |title= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |publisher= |doi= |pmid= |pmc= |url= |accessdate= }}

User Templates

{{Admin}}

Crazynas (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

{{Unsigned2}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazynas (talk • contribs) 06:15, 07 December 1941

{{Usercheck-full|USERNAME}}

Crazynas (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

User:Crazynas Translucion

TOP

Never turn away an idea solely because of its source. Ever. That is an ugly, ugly road to go down, one that leads to utter stagnation and decay. If you disagree with the proposal on its own merits, then that's completely fine. God knows you won't be alone there, and nor should you be; reasoned opposition is the fundamental building block of dispute resolution, and by extension, civilization. But let your opposition stand on its own merits in turn; don't bring ugly partisan politics into it. Writ Keeper 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [7]

Alternate Accounts

• ObjectivismLover (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email) This is my recent changes patrolling (currently using STiki) account.
• CrazynasBot (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email) This is my fully automated account (which currently has no tasks), the Bot's userpage documents the historical uses.

Under the Hood

Back to the TOP