User:Crazynas/contributions of interest

Currently two projects here, Indefinitely Semi-protected pages and Administrative Accountability, they are related as in many cases the protection was negligent. This is not a disparagement of the individual sysops that protected the pages in the first place, but rather I think a shortsightedness in the protection policy and practices themselves (in other words they were upholding policy but the policy was wrong).

Administrative Accountability

This is an IAR page that I think further benefits the project. I do it in all good faith, which I hope the principles below demonstrate. I hope that administrators realize I only wish to make this perfect and I am really only trying to back them up. Please don't take offense. If you're here, it is probably because I left a note on your talk page about a page you protected, possibly a long time ago. This is an attempt at further explanation.

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.

Based on my interpretation of the above and other relevant policy, what I am doing is well within the bounds of the project. This is a log of actions where there is some question or concern, and link to any relevant discussions, as well as a summary of the resolution. It is also a log of actions I investigate but ultimately conclude to be for the good of the project. I think this falls well with the bounds of reasonable good faith and civility, I also feels this page fails Polemic. I believe that in every instance where what I said caused a change, that was a positive intervention and recording it here is just like a barnstar. For those cases where the administrator stays course, things get a little murkier. As a final safety measure, any editor may blank anything contentious that I record here (including anyone 'involved').

Musings

This page was inspired by an MfD which made me think about the review process, if any, that administrators go through, specifically a RC style review of their administrative actions. Since the tools they possess, primarily their ability to blocking,delete and protect affect the nature of the wiki in a fundamental and possibly quite devastating way; I think that having another editor or administrator review every action, or at least every possibly controversial action(just like ArbCom requires of advanced permissions) wouldn't be a bad idea.

What if the administrator logs had a built in functionally to NPPatrolled that any other administrator could mark, after they reviewed the decision. It could have exceptions for bots certainly and even a 'minor' function for uncontroversial edits I'm thinking pages already CSD'ed (two people already agree), blocking vandalism only accounts (temp for IP's of course) and open proxies, and short term semi-protecting pages for vandalism. Of course maybe admins review each others decisions and I just don't realize it... the idea, of course is that every potentially contentious action is reviewed by another uninvolved party.

This is inspired also in part by the countless thousands of hours editors and administrators have put into guarding the RC, stopped edit wars, cooled the flamers and of course added the content that some people forget it's all about. I'm only trying to help, and that's really, what it's all about.

Principles

As a measure of transparency this is the working set of guidelines I follow as part of this Action Patrol.

• Currently I am semi-actively/randomly checking block and protection logs, examining RC style, and noting potentially nonconstructive actions I see. I have or soon will contact the admin related to the action. Generally, it's a question about why they mopped in that instance, sometimes a direct suggestion that a different course might be prudent.
• This is a log of actions I have commented on or I investigate, and ultimately agree with.

• I see myself as another uninvolved party providing my view that consensus might not exist.
• Positive contributions will already be {{done}}. I will generally not contact the acting administrator in these cases unless to congratulate them on their exceptional use of the tools.
• I only deal with actions that are live, if it's reversed (by anyone) or expired it doesn't matter to me, although I'll keep it here noting that the discussion was rendered moot(you can always contact me if you want to know what my reasoning was).
• A particularly interesting action may spark my interest to the point that I end up examining previous actions that might also end up here, involving the same editor or administrator.
• I deeply consider an action, including page histories, talk logs, action logs, contributions and histories of users/involved parties before logging and commenting. I always assume the administrator acted in the best interest of the project, and only raise issue with actions that I consider possibly detrimental. I don't raise requests lightly because I believe that administrators carefully weigh all other options before deciding to use their tools. The involved administrator, or any editor in good faith may blank any contentious logs on this page at any time.

• Any editor (with or with out the bit) may add entries here provided they follow the principles outlined above. Remember the heart of the policy is RC style action patrol for the good of the project.

Logs

March 2013

• [1], #ANI. More on this later, this is slightly outside the scope of this project as it currently stands, (matter is already closed) but I'm leaving the link here, with no commentary but for possible furture use.

August 2011

Protection

•  Done [2] odd one, this is pagemove vandalism that triggered PP because of the glitch that when semi-pro'ed pages are moved, the moving user re-protects the new page.asked the responding admin about move protecting the BLP page. 04:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Done log six month SP 05:03, 24 August 2011, prompted me to investigate, but looking over the histories it seems totally warranted. 05:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• log, 20:45, 11 August 2011 RFPP, talk
  •  Done I didn't follow up on this one. The protecting admin unprotected less then four days into the week long FP. Good use of the tools to prevent needless edit warring. 01:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• log, 05:47, 8 August 2011
  •  Done talk, page unprotected, problematic website added to COIBot request granted20:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)