Dangerous factionalism (Was: Re: SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks)

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Matthew Brown <morven@...> wrote:
[...]
> Lar is foolish, IMO, to contribute to WR; it's a shifting mess of
> crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with
> paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking.  On
> the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I
> feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening
> impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this
> case.

I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the
pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted
to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time
and place.  This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.

The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of
our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has
broken down rather badly and completely.  There is nothing more
dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have
both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the
motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.

We have a pair of double-edged swords in play.  Both the investigation
of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the
investigation of abuses within the community require investigators
(editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and
engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of
either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or
external troublemakers.

The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each
other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.

Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat
associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception
and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that
(a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed
block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in
retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).

I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to
what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external
threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting
Wikipedia's goals and community.

I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this
- "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out
as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably
as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more
involved than we are).  Determine whether the factions have become
sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this
needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.

It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.

It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone
involved.  Myself certainly included.  I hope not Larry or Allison - I
personally have high regard for their support for the project and
community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an
honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.

If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve
into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with
the resources at hand.  I put forth that this is already in play,
though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've
been playing.

Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make
the center hold on this.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Christiano Moreschi]

What I will say is that [[WP:ENC]] has been completely forgotten in all of this. WR, SlimVirgin, Sidaway's civility, Lar's checkusers...who cares? Just do your job as admins, folks: keep the encyclopedicity of the site intact. If you're not doing that, what good are you doing?
 
CMOdi profanum vulgus et arceo.> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:48:17 -0700> From: george.herbert@...> To: wikien-l@...> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Dangerous factionalism (Was: Re: SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks)> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Matthew Brown <morven@...> wrote:> [...]> > Lar is foolish, IMO, to contribute to WR; it's a shifting mess of> > crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with> > paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking. On> > the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I> > feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening> > impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this> > case.> > I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the> pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted> to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time> and place. This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.> > The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of> our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has> broken down rather badly and completely. There is nothing more> dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have> both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the> motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.> > We have a pair of double-edged swords in play. Both the investigation> of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the> investigation of abuses within the community require investigators> (editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and> engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of> either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or> external troublemakers.> > The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each> other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.> > Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat> associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception> and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that> (a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed> block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in> retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).> > I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to> what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external> threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting> Wikipedia's goals and community.> > I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this> - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out> as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably> as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more> involved than we are). Determine whether the factions have become> sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this> needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.> > It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.> > It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone> involved. Myself certainly included. I hope not Larry or Allison - I> personally have high regard for their support for the project and> community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an> honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.> > If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve> into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with> the resources at hand. I put forth that this is already in play,> though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've> been playing.> > Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make> the center hold on this.> > > -- > -george william herbert> george.herbert@...> > _______________________________________________> WikiEN-l mailing list> WikiEN-l@...> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________
100’s of Nikon cameras to be won with Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719808/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Christiano Moreschi]

[[WP:ENC]] has got completely forgotten in all this. Sidaway's civility, Wikipedia Review, SlimVirgin's cabalistic tendencies, Lar's checkusers...who cares? Our job as admins is to maintain the encyclopedicity of the site, not to play silly political games. That seems to have been lost sight of. If you're not doing maintaining encyclopedicity, then what good are you doing?
 
CM
> I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the> pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted> to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time> and place. This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.> > The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of> our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has> broken down rather badly and completely. There is nothing more> dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have> both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the> motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.> > We have a pair of double-edged swords in play. Both the investigation> of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the> investigation of abuses within the community require investigators> (editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and> engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of> either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or> external troublemakers.> > The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each> other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.> > Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat> associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception> and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that> (a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed> block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in> retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).> > I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to> what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external> threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting> Wikipedia's goals and community.> > I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this> - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out> as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably> as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more> involved than we are). Determine whether the factions have become> sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this> needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.> > It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.> > It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone> involved. Myself certainly included. I hope not Larry or Allison - I> personally have high regard for their support for the project and> community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an> honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.> > If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve> into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with> the resources at hand. I put forth that this is already in play,> though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've> been playing.> > Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make> the center hold on this.> > > -- > -george william herbert> george.herbert@...
_________________________________________________________________
The John Lewis Clearance - save up to 50% with FREE delivery
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719806/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2008/7/21 Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman@...>:

> [[WP:ENC]] has got completely forgotten in all this. Sidaway's civility, Wikipedia Review, SlimVirgin's cabalistic tendencies, Lar's checkusers...who cares? Our job as admins is to maintain the encyclopedicity of the site, not to play silly political games. That seems to have been lost sight of. If you're not doing maintaining encyclopedicity, then what good are you doing?


May I add also the Rule of wikien-l: "If you bring a dispute to
wikien-l as the latest forum, you may already have lost." It's a place
to float ideas, not a part of the dispute resolution process.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Nathan Awrich]

Well, in fairness to Sarah, this most recent set of threads was begun by
David Katz and not her.

Nathan

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:

> 2008/7/21 Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman@...>:
>
> > [[WP:ENC]] has got completely forgotten in all this. Sidaway's civility,
> Wikipedia Review, SlimVirgin's cabalistic tendencies, Lar's checkusers...who
> cares? Our job as admins is to maintain the encyclopedicity of the site, not
> to play silly political games. That seems to have been lost sight of. If
> you're not doing maintaining encyclopedicity, then what good are you doing?
>
>
> May I add also the Rule of wikien-l: "If you bring a dispute to
> wikien-l as the latest forum, you may already have lost." It's a place
> to float ideas, not a part of the dispute resolution process.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[FT2]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:48 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert@...>
wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Matthew Brown <morven@...> wrote:
> [...]
> > Lar is foolish, IMO, to contribute to WR; it's a shifting mess of
> > crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with
> > paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking.  On
> > the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I
> > feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening
> > impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this
> > case.
>
> I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the
> pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted
> to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time
> and place.  This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.
>
> The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of
> our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has
> broken down rather badly and completely.  There is nothing more
> dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have
> both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the
> motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.
>
> We have a pair of double-edged swords in play.  Both the investigation
> of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the
> investigation of abuses within the community require investigators
> (editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and
> engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of
> either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or
> external troublemakers.
>
> The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each
> other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.
>
> Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat
> associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception
> and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that
> (a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed
> block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in
> retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).
>
> I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to
> what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external
> threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting
> Wikipedia's goals and community.
>
> I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this
> - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out
> as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably
> as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more
> involved than we are).  Determine whether the factions have become
> sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this
> needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.
>
> It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.
>
> It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone
> involved.  Myself certainly included.  I hope not Larry or Allison - I
> personally have high regard for their support for the project and
> community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an
> honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.
>
> If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve
> into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with
> the resources at hand.  I put forth that this is already in play,
> though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've
> been playing.
>
> Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make
> the center hold on this.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert@...
>

Broadly, concur. Though unsure the best response. Ban all would be a bit
draconian. It would need considerable thought whether it was resolvable by
any lesser means than deciding "you you and you are major players on both
sides, consider yourself temp banned".



FT2
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[George Herbert]

On 7/21/08, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman@...> wrote:
> [[WP:ENC]] has got completely forgotten in all this. Sidaway's civility,
> Wikipedia Review, SlimVirgin's cabalistic tendencies, Lar's checkusers...who
> cares? Our job as admins is to maintain the encyclopedicity of the site, not
> to play silly political games. That seems to have been lost sight of. If
> you're not doing maintaining encyclopedicity, then what good are you doing?

I've been trying to do more of this the last few months.

Sticking my head in the sand and hoping that the dumb politics would
go away didn't work.  I advise the rest of you not to ignore it
either.  This is bad for the community.  It needs to stop.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Daniel R. Tobias]

On 21 Jul 2008 at 13:48:17, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert@...> wrote:

> I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this
> - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out
> as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably
> as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more
> involved than we are).  Determine whether the factions have become
> sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this
> needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.

I'm far out, you say?  Far out, man!

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!"  -- Barry Goldwater, in
a speech written by Karl Hess, who later became the Libertarian Party
News editor


--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ron Ritzman]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:48 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert@...> wrote:

> I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to
> what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external
> threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting
> Wikipedia's goals and community.

[snip]

> It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.
>
> It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone
> involved.  Myself certainly included.  I hope not Larry or Allison - I
> personally have high regard for their support for the project and
> community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an
> honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.
>
> If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve
> into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with
> the resources at hand.

The danger here is that this "center" will evolve into another "faction".

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ian Woollard]

2008/7/22 Daniel R. Tobias <dan@...>:

> On 21 Jul 2008 at 13:48:17, "George Herbert"
> <george.herbert@...> wrote:
>
>> I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this
>> - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out
>> as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably
>> as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more
>> involved than we are).  Determine whether the factions have become
>> sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this
>> needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.
>
> I'm far out, you say?  Far out, man!
>
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!"  -- Barry Goldwater, in
> a speech written by Karl Hess, who later became the Libertarian Party
> News editor

I don't think that there is or should be any center other than verifiability.

Adding extremisms to the wikipedia is fine. It's when you take other
people's extremisms out that the problems start.

However, there are *some* community standards: extreme spam,
advertising, or trivia- that's just going *too* far. ;-)

> --
> == Dan ==
> Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
> Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
> Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ken Arromdee]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, FT2 wrote:
>Broadly, concur. Though unsure the best response. Ban all would be a bit
>draconian. It would need considerable thought whether it was resolvable by
>any lesser means than deciding "you you and you are major players on both
>sides, consider yourself temp banned".

"Punish everyone involved" is common in the schoolyard.

Which is not a positive comparison.  Because it leads to serious injustice
in the schoolyard, when a kid gets bullied, complains about it, and the
teachers punish both the bully and the victim.

A response which says "punish them whether they're the victim or the
perpetrator" values not making a fuss over justice.  If you're going to do
that, why even admit that there's such a thing as misuse of privileges at
all?  You obviously don't care about stopping it, after all.


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Alec Conroy-2]

On 7/22/08, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, FT2 wrote:
> "Punish everyone involved" is common in the schoolyard.
>
>  Which is not a positive comparison.

But does desysopping really have to be a punishment?   Can't it just
be a change in job title?  A request, from the project, that an
individual step back from the stressful job of managing inter-user
conflict and devote all their efforts to encyclopedia work?

Is it possible a desysopping could be as simple as "We think you could
be more useful to the team as an editor than an administrator?"


If there are any desysopping of long-time contributors, I hope they're
done in the form of:  "You've been heroic, you've fought a good fight,
and we think you've completed your tour of duty.  We've noticed you're
a little shell-shocked, it's time for you to have some R&R and get out
of the theater of combat, so we're going to do a strategic
redeployment"

Fundamentally, the administrator's job is one of inter-user conflict
resolution.  So maybe it makes sense to ask some admins to step away
from the stressful (and extremely complex) job of conflict resolution
and just focus exclusively on the more straightforward task of
building an encyclopedia.

In some departments, a police office who suffers a severe trauma will
automatically be transferred to a desk job for a while.  It's not a
punishment, it's a way of saying "anybody who went through what you've
been through needs a break from having to resolve conflict".

Of course, I realize anyone who is ever desysopped will probably have
some hurt feelings and will, on some level, feel "punished"--  but I
really don't think it _has_ to be a punishment. Not really.    On some
levels, a desysopping really can be a matter of "We could really use
your help more over here".

That may not solve the factionalism, but it would be a start.
Getting the people who are  a little too-factionalized off the front
lines and away from day-in day-out inter-user-conflict would have to
help mend rifts in the community.   Maybe problems will persist, but
on the other hand, maybe factions would start the fade once people
were no longer assigned to the realm of inter-user conflict in the
role of admins.

Just my thought.

Alec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

2008/7/22 Alec Conroy <alecmconroy@...>:

> On 7/22/08, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, FT2 wrote:
>> "Punish everyone involved" is common in the schoolyard.
>>
>>  Which is not a positive comparison.
>
> But does desysopping really have to be a punishment?   Can't it just
> be a change in job title?  A request, from the project, that an
> individual step back from the stressful job of managing inter-user
> conflict and devote all their efforts to encyclopedia work?
>
> Is it possible a desysopping could be as simple as "We think you could
> be more useful to the team as an editor than an administrator?"

Nope. When you are an admin people will generally in editing
situations assume you know what you are talking about when it comes to
matters relating to wikipedia. There is a degree of deference you
receive. Once you stop being an admin that goes away.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ian Woollard]

2008/7/22 geni <geniice@...>:
> When you are an admin people will generally in editing
> situations assume you know what you are talking about when it comes to
> matters relating to wikipedia. There is a degree of deference you
> receive. Once you stop being an admin that goes away.

People who worry about such things probably shouldn't be admins anyway.

> --
> geni

--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

So one question on the psychological profile for admins might be:
A) As an admin do you visualize your role as janitor, hall monitor, or riot  
patrol ?



**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.      
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

2008/7/22 Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@...>:

> 2008/7/22 geni <geniice@...>:
>> When you are an admin people will generally in editing
>> situations assume you know what you are talking about when it comes to
>> matters relating to wikipedia. There is a degree of deference you
>> receive. Once you stop being an admin that goes away.
>
> People who worry about such things probably shouldn't be admins anyway.
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard

Its not a question of worrying about them it is a question of them
existing at all.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Alec Conroy-2]

On 7/22/08, geni <geniice@...> wrote:

> 2008/7/22 Alec Conroy <alecmconroy@...>:
>  > Is it possible a desysopping could be as simple as "We think you could
>  > be more useful to the team as an editor than an administrator?"
>
>
>
>  Nope. When you are an admin people will generally in editing
>  situations assume you know what you are talking about when it comes to
>  matters relating to wikipedia. There is a degree of deference you
>  receive. Once you stop being an admin that goes away.

Perhaps we would want to invoke the status of Former Admin or Retired
Admin or Honorably-Discharged Admin.

It just occurs to me that desysoppings should be de-stigmatized,
insofar as possible.  (perhaps that's not very far).  Speaking totally
in the abstract,  there are going to be lots of very valued
contributors who make it pass RFA but who, it turns out, don't do so
well at the admin job.

In general, a desysopping is often interpreted as "You screwed up
badly, repeatedly.  We're very mad at you, and we're taking your tools
away".

But maybe there's room for "Good work.  You got a lot done.   We
appreciate it.  It's probably best for the project if you let the rest
of us take it from here".

Alec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Delirium]

Alec Conroy wrote:
> In general, a desysopping is often interpreted as "You screwed up
> badly, repeatedly.  We're very mad at you, and we're taking your tools
> away".
>
> But maybe there's room for "Good work.  You got a lot done.   We
> appreciate it.  It's probably best for the project if you let the rest
> of us take it from here".

It's hard to interpret it that way, though. Asking someone not to do X
or Y in the future is one thing, but invoking technical measures to
literally prevent them from doing X or Y in the future is hard to
interpret as anything but "we distrust you so thoroughly that we feel we
need to take protective measures through the software against you".

-Mark


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Chris Howie]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy@...> wrote:

> Perhaps we would want to invoke the status of Former Admin or Retired
> Admin or Honorably-Discharged Admin.
>
> It just occurs to me that desysoppings should be de-stigmatized,
> insofar as possible.  (perhaps that's not very far).  Speaking totally
> in the abstract,  there are going to be lots of very valued
> contributors who make it pass RFA but who, it turns out, don't do so
> well at the admin job.
>
> In general, a desysopping is often interpreted as "You screwed up
> badly, repeatedly.  We're very mad at you, and we're taking your tools
> away".
>
> But maybe there's room for "Good work.  You got a lot done.   We
> appreciate it.  It's probably best for the project if you let the rest
> of us take it from here".

But it's up to the community to decide that this is the case to begin
with... and then wouldn't the community just know this to be the fact,
without require some sort of special status?  The only value such a
status would have as far as I can tell would be to inform new users
that so-and-so former-admin did a good job.  And I would expect that
if somebody new read so far to know that they were a previous admin,
they would also know the surrounding circumstances.

--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Alec Conroy-2]

On 7/22/08, Delirium <delirium@...> wrote:

> Alec Conroy wrote:
>  > But maybe there's room for "Good work.  You got a lot done.   We
>  > appreciate it.  It's probably best for the project if you let the rest
>  > of us take it from here".
>
>
> It's hard to interpret it that way, though. Asking someone not to do X
>  or Y in the future is one thing, but invoking technical measures to
>  literally prevent them from doing X or Y in the future is hard to
>  interpret as anything but "we distrust you so thoroughly that we feel we
>  need to take protective measures through the software against you".

No, no-- you're right.  Nobody is really going to be too happy about
be desysopped under any circumstances.  It's hard to find a way to
mend a factionalized community.

That's why, I imagine, the C68-FM-SV case has lasted two months
without being resolved.  It's all well and good to point out the
simpler problems, but as to the deeper issue of the division and
faction-forming-- even if you could agree on the facts, it's still not
at all clear what the best course of action to take would be.

My only humble suggestion is maybe to ask people to get out of the
behavior-control game by honorably/voluntarily  retiring them from
adminship.   Even then, I don't know if it would help--  when you
consider the factionalism crisis that George Herbert describes,  only
a small portion involved the actual use of admin powers.

But certainly, doing nothing DEFINITELY won't help.   By my count, the
same basic dispute has been going on for about two years now?, give or
take?   No end in sight.

Alec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l