User:Mike.lifeguard: Difference between revisions

Herbythyme (talk | contribs)

m Protected "User:Mike.lifeguard": Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

← Older edit

Mike.lifeguard (talk | contribs)

m 'bye

{{User:Mike.lifeguard/icons}}

{{User:Mike.lifeguard/icons}}

{{retired}}

{{User:Mike.lifeguard/UserboxesTop}}

{{User:Mike.lifeguard/UserboxesTop}}

{{-}}

[[File:Anti-spam kitteh.jpg|thumb|left|Be afraid. Be very afraid.]]

I started editing [[w:|Wikipedia]], but quickly got fed up with that. These days, I generally avoid editing it except for random error fixes, and sometimes discussing policy. I moved to [[b:|Wikibooks]], where I became an [[administrator|admin]], [[Checkuser|CU]] and [[bureaucrat|'crat]]. I was also an administrator and CU at [[commons:|Commons]], however I have since resigned. I am an admin, CU & oversighter for Meta. I also have rollback on [[global rollback|all wikis]], and various other local permissions like Editor. In February 2009, I was [[Stewards/elections 2009/statements/Mike.lifeguard|elected]] as a [[steward]]. This means I can help you in [[Steward requests|new and exciting ways]]! However, since Meta is a home wiki for me, I cannot take action here as a steward except in emergencies (and the same goes for my other home wiki: English Wikibooks). I would be happy to help you with requests regarding other wikis.

I do consider myself to be a [[b:Wikibooks:Wikibookians|Wikibookian]] at heart, though I think all the projects are valuable. I believe that although [[w:|Wikipedia]] (for example) isn't my cup of tea, as a WMF project we should pull for them.

I watch for cross-wiki [[Talk:Spam blacklist|spam]] and [[SWMT|vandalism]], and I'm trying to get more people active across wikis, because {{plainlinks|1=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586609&oldid=586571|2=''isolated incidents of vandalism always will be that unless they are collated!''}} My main area for work on Meta is [[Talk:Spam blacklist|the global spam blacklist]]. I'm also trying to promote [[irc:wikimedia-admin|#wikimedia-admin]] as a resource for cross-wiki admin coordination. This channel is useful for new admins to get help and advice, as well for all admins to coordinate cross-wiki vandal/spam fighting, [[NOP|the ban on open proxies]] and other sysop tasks. Please consider joining the channel if you are an administrator, and in particular if you are active in cross-wiki affairs.

{{anchor|inactivity}}I believe only trusted users who have shown a need for certain tools and are active in bettering the community in ways which would be enhanced with those tools should have access to them. Those who are no longer trusted, no longer active, or no longer using the tools for the benefit of the community should have their access removed. Nor is being someone important or influential a reason to keep extra tools. Additional access is a commitment to the community, not a trophy. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Administrators/confirm&oldid=1329560#AmiDaniel This] is the correct response to de-adminship for inactivity.

{{anchor|bureaucrats}}[[Wikibooks]] has a very strong tradition of affording bureaucrats wide (and in theory, unlimited) latitude in determining consensus, and in particular with respect to RFAs. [[User:Whiteknight|Whiteknight]] [http://wikibooks.blogspot.com/2009/01/rfa-success.html sums it up nicely]. [[Polls are evil|I don't wish to be a bean counter]] - open wikis thrive on consensus and compromise, not majority rule. This applies at all levels.

I think it's worth noting that what I (and Whiteknight) are talking about ''isn't'' the same as monarchy à la Jimbo - bureaucrats on English Wikibooks don't override consensus. It's merely that we believe (and I think rightfully so) that certain kinds of votes don't carry much weight. "<nowiki>{{oppose}} - is gay ~~~~</nowiki>" for example would be a terrible reason to oppose me in an RFA. In fact, I believe this so strongly that I actually restarted my own RFB on English Wikibooks (which would have been successful had I not done so - feel free to review it if you haven't already done so) because people were saying what amounted to "<nowiki>{{support}} - I like him ~~~~</nowiki>" which is vacuous, or nearly so. This attitude isn't radical; it's exactly the mindset expressed in [[Poles are evil]] (or its non-funny brother article [[Polls are evil]] <tt>:D</tt> ) - which everyone says they agree with, but barely anybody acts like it.

I honestly think we shouldn't vote on things, RFAs included. Again, I don't think that's a radical position. In reality, it's '''more''' respectful of consensus, for reasons discussed adequately elsewhere, most notably by Jimmy at the 2005 [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jimmy_wales_on_the_birth_of_wikipedia.html TED conference]. If any doubt about my commitment to consensus remains, I'd point to my efforts to give the community more of a say in granting global rollback rights. Previously, stewards were the only ones involved in that decision - in effect, I removed power from myself - the exact opposite of what a power hungry person would do. I've undertaken similar endeavours on English Wikibooks, where I devolved power from bureaucrats to sysops for two specialized user groups we have on that wiki; and I continue to move in that direction with respect to electing and confirming stewards.

{{/identity}}

{{/identity}}