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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Alec Conroy wrote:
> 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?"

Whatever you call it doesn't change what it is; they had permission before,
and now don't.

Taking away privileges of someone because they "participated in conflict"
when their participation consists of being attacked or of reporting attacks
is wrong.

And telling them that it's for their benefit is a transparent lie.  You
haven't really done an evaluation fo all sources of stress in that person's
life and come to an informed decision that removing them would produce
less stress.  You're just making an excuse for something you want to do
because you want to cut down on complaints about abuse, rather than cutting
down on abuse.


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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 WJhonson@... wrote:
> 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 ?

If I was a janitor and was fired because I reported being harassed by
another janitor, and policy was to avoid complaints by firing all people
involved in the complaint, I'd think that was wrong.  It wouldn't make any
difference that being a janitor is a low status job; being fired is being
fired.  It also wouldn't make any difference if you said "it's not a
punishment, we didn't fire you, we just laid you off.  We feel that it would
be less stressful for you to not have a job that is obviously unpleasant to
you anyway."


_______________________________________________
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@...>:
> My only humble suggestion is maybe to ask people to get out of the
> behavior-control game by honorably/voluntarily  retiring them from
> adminship.

Problem is we have already had to introduce the resigned under a cloud
clause so voluntarily  retiring isn't going to work.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
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 4:45 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...> wrote:
> If I was a janitor and was fired because I reported being harassed by
> another janitor, and policy was to avoid complaints by firing all people
> involved in the complaint, I'd think that was wrong.  It wouldn't make any
> difference that being a janitor is a low status job; being fired is being
> fired.  It also wouldn't make any difference if you said "it's not a
> punishment, we didn't fire you, we just laid you off.  We feel that it would
> be less stressful for you to not have a job that is obviously unpleasant to
> you anyway."

While I understand and agree with the point being made, I feel it
necessary to point out that admins are not paid.  Firing you from your
job means you aren't making any income and can't support yourself
until you find another.  Removing someone's admin bit has zero effect
on your income (unless doing admin things on Wikipedia is your job, in
which case you're either a WMF employee or shouldn't be an admin).

It may even have a positive impact on income cause you'll be less
likely to get fired from your IT job for spending all day editing
Wikipedia.  :)

*ahem*

The effect on someone's stress level could go either way -- you're
either done worrying about conflict things or you're pissed that
you've been de-sysopped and will raise hell.  So de-sysopping for the
sake of reduced stress isn't a valid point anyway.

--
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, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Alec Conroy wrote:
>  > 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?"
>
>
> Whatever you call it doesn't change what it is; they had permission before,
>  and now don't.
>
>  Taking away privileges of someone because they "participated in conflict"
>  when their participation consists of being attacked or of reporting attacks
>  is wrong.

Well, many users tend to think the factionalism problem is something
above and beyond mere victimhood.  If you deny that premise-- if you
look at the situation and see straightforward "abusers are abusing the
abused", then of course you have a simple straightforward course of
action-- ban the evildoers.  In such a case your only problem is how
to convince everyone else.

If the problem is more complicated than this, however, then the
solution is far less straighforward.   When starting this thread,
George Herbert made a convincing case that there is a trend of
dangerous factionalism.  if that's the case, how would we go about
mending the wounds?

I don't know.

Taking the problem seriously.  That'd be a start.

Not procrastinating and hoping that, left alone, the problem will just go away.

Maybe getting the most-affected people off the front lines, into
places where aren't responsible for inter-user conflict, but while
still assuming good faith on their part.



>  And telling them that it's for their benefit is a transparent lie.

Mostly, I'd say it's for the benefit of the project.   But ideally it
would be for the benefit of both.

> If I was a janitor and was fired because I reported being harassed by
> another janitor, and policy was to avoid complaints by firing all people
> involved in the complaint, I'd think that was wrong.

Granted.  But I think a better metaphor would be "in addition to
sincerely pursuing your each and every one of your harassent claims,
we also think it would be best for all involved if you were
transferred from janitorial services to A/V Services.   It's  a less
hostile work environment and the pay is exactly the same. :)

Alec

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

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:29 AM 7/22/2008, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>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.

Well, smart teachers don't punish either, and avoid deciding blame.
Rather, they stop and prevent further abuse, they make sure the kids
can talk about what happened in a safe place, etc., etc. And they
encourage the kids to find ways to get along, or, at least, to leave
each other alone. And when one kid is constantly the focus of
complaints, then they need to give that some special attention.

When there is a brawl in a bar, and the police walk in, they do not
attempt to figure out who caused it, whose fault it is, who is to
blame, etc. They tell everyone to stop. Now. And if *anyone* doesn't
stop, they arrest that person (or worse.) How often that person,
being dragged off, is screaming, "But he started it!"

Perhaps. Perhaps he did start it. But you continued it, and you are
still carrying it. Drop it. Or be arrested.

Our "Stop!" is warning followed by "arrest" (block) if the behavior
continues. Sometimes we get totally distracted by trying to figure
out who was wrong (i.e., who started it). Admins should stay out of
that, almost totally. Disputes will always erupt, and, it is often
possible to find out "who started it," but that actually doesn't
help, much, to stop it, because before each action there is a cause,
and before that cause another cause, and on without limit.

No, stop! Now! Then, when we can start to communicate civilly, we can
start to resolve whatever underlying problems there are. It's not
Rule Number One, but WP:CIVIL is far more important than our
too-common casual tolerance of incivility might indicate.


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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> When there is a brawl in a bar, and the police walk in, they do not
> attempt to figure out who caused it, whose fault it is, who is to
> blame, etc. They tell everyone to stop. Now. And if *anyone* doesn't
> stop, they arrest that person (or worse.) How often that person,
> being dragged off, is screaming, "But he started it!"

But if one person is participating in the brawl because they had to defend
themselves and they'd rather it be a brawl than a beating, they could file
charges against the other one.  The legal system doesn't say "you're
equally punished, now go away"; if one person's at fault, and the system
works properly, the system will figure that out and later punish only him.

And if someone makes a police report about a burglar, the police don't
respond by arresting both them and the burglar.


_______________________________________________
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 7/23/08, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...> wrote:
>  And if someone makes a police report about a burglar, the police don't
>  respond by arresting both them and the burglar.

Again, the point here isn't justice, but to figure out how we can best
write an encyclopedia.

Let us assume, as you do, that there are clear innocents here. Even
still, I think it's entirely plausible that a person could be
sufficiently victimized that they're no longer capable of performing
the role of admin.

As the number of conflicts a user is involved in increases, it errodes
their ability to serve as an uninvolved neutral third party able to
resolve inter-user conflict.  It's conceivable to me, in the abstract,
a user could, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a
position where it was probably best they no longer act as an admin.

One way of looking at it would be that, as factions form, it might be
hard for a controversial user to reasonably be viewed as "uninvolved"
in practically any inter-user.  Another argument could be that a user
has become a lightning rod for a deeper dispute--  much like the guilt
or innocents of OJ Simpson became, in some circles, a focal point for
race relations in the US.   Or maybe it's as simple as recognizing the
status quo isn't working out for the project--  akin to the end of a
romantic relationship, recognizing  "This just isn't working out...
I'm sorry, but, the precise nature of our relationship has to change,
but I hope we can still be friends".

(But admittedly, this whole line of thinking is predicated upon the
assumption that adminship truly is not a trophy, and that therefore,
desysopping is truly not automatically a demerit, a punishment, or a
mark of guilt. )

Alec

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

[Jonathan Hughes-4]

>
> From: "Alec Conroy" <alecmconroy@...>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dangerous factionalism (Was: Re: SlimVirgin
>        and     CheckUser leaks)
>
> Again, the point here isn't justice, but to figure out how we can best
> write an encyclopedia.
>
> Let us assume, as you do, that there are clear innocents here. Even
> still, I think it's entirely plausible that a person could be
> sufficiently victimized that they're no longer capable of performing
> the role of admin.
>
> As the number of conflicts a user is involved in increases, it errodes
> their ability to serve as an uninvolved neutral third party able to
> resolve inter-user conflict.  It's conceivable to me, in the abstract,
> a user could, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a
> position where it was probably best they no longer act as an admin.
>
> One way of looking at it would be that, as factions form, it might be
> hard for a controversial user to reasonably be viewed as "uninvolved"
> in practically any inter-user.  Another argument could be that a user
> has become a lightning rod for a deeper dispute--  much like the guilt
> or innocents of OJ Simpson became, in some circles, a focal point for
> race relations in the US.   Or maybe it's as simple as recognizing the
> status quo isn't working out for the project--  akin to the end of a
> romantic relationship, recognizing  "This just isn't working out...
> I'm sorry, but, the precise nature of our relationship has to change,
> but I hope we can still be friends".
>
> (But admittedly, this whole line of thinking is predicated upon the
> assumption that adminship truly is not a trophy, and that therefore,
> desysopping is truly not automatically a demerit, a punishment, or a
> mark of guilt. )
>
> Alec
>

Wouldn't it be just a bit easier to have admins go on wikibreak instead?
It'd have the same effect (assuming either works) and without the stigma of
desysopping.  Or else suggest that admins voluntarily stop doing admin
things for a while.  If necessary, a wikibreak could be enforced (there's a
script to add to your monobook.js file, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User
scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer]], which could do it) or something
drastic like that, and it'd still be better (I think).

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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Alec Conroy wrote:

> >  And if someone makes a police report about a burglar, the police don't
> >  respond by arresting both them and the burglar.
>
> Again, the point here isn't justice, but to figure out how we can best
> write an encyclopedia.
>
> Let us assume, as you do, that there are clear innocents here. Even
> still, I think it's entirely plausible that a person could be
> sufficiently victimized that they're no longer capable of performing
> the role of admin.
>
> As the number of conflicts a user is involved in increases, it errodes
> their ability to serve as an uninvolved neutral third party able to
> resolve inter-user conflict.

But the punishment isn't for conflicts, but for *reporting* conflicts.

You might argue that being in more conflicts makes a user less neutral.
But it's hard to argue that *reporting* more conflicts makes a user less
neutral.


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

[Anthony-73]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM,  <WJhonson@...> wrote:
> 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 ?
>
My answer: Adminship isn't a role at all, it's a permission.  If you
want to compare it to something, try something like CPR certification.

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

[Anthony-73]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy@...> wrote:
> On 7/23/08, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...> wrote:
>>  And if someone makes a police report about a burglar, the police don't
>>  respond by arresting both them and the burglar.
>
> Again, the point here isn't justice, but to figure out how we can best
> write an encyclopedia.
>
Justice is a basic principle which is necessary for successfully
engaging in any social activity, including that of collaboratively
writing an encyclopedia.  If you don't provide admins with justice,
how are you going to convince anyone to be an admin?

> Let us assume, as you do, that there are clear innocents here. Even
> still, I think it's entirely plausible that a person could be
> sufficiently victimized that they're no longer capable of performing
> the role of admin.
>
I don't see how a completely innocent person can be victimized to a
point which necessitates "invoking technical measures to literally
prevent them" from performing admin actions.

You say that "doing nothing DEFINITELY won't help", but doing
*nothing* would probably have about the same result as deadminship,
wouldn't it?

_______________________________________________
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 7/23/08, Jonathan Hughes <lifebaka@...> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be just a bit easier to have admins go on wikibreak instead?
>  It'd have the same effect (assuming either works) and without the stigma of
>  desysopping.  Or else suggest that admins voluntarily stop doing admin
>  things for a while.

Absolutlely--   those are all options an arbcom could draw upon too in
trying to mend the situation.

Another middle-ground that I don't think I've seen before--  eliciting
a promise from admins to stop using their tools until being
"re-confirmed" by a RFA or Arbcom-- BUT, keeping the bit in place,
letting the user still be an admin, and not have the stigma.

And I should say, despite this thread, I'm not actually lobbying for
desysopping or anything--- I'm just trying to find options in the
middle ground. middle-ground.   Arbcom seems to be deadlocked or
otherwise stuck, George Herbert makes some excellent points, and it
seems reasonable to brainstorm solutions that lie between "Person is
commended"  and "Person is hereby desysopped, with extreme prejudice.
"

Maybe if assigning fault isn't something people can find consensus on,
perhaps consensus could be reached through just focusing on how to
limit the potential for the conflict to continue unabated or for it to
expand.

Tricky situations abound.  Perhaps the solution is to admit we don't
know if "you were bad" or not-- we can't agree on that.  But we do
know "the project might be better off if you let the other 1500 admins
handling conflicts".     Just a for example.

It's also possible, though I might say not likely, that the situation
could be resolved by just ignoring the factionalism problem GH
discusses  but dealing very firmly with the more  black-and-white
breaches of policy.  If everyone involved were on a very tight
civility leash, for example, maybe flames would die down through a
ripple-effect the resolves the community issues.

I dunno.  Very complicated, very tricky.   At this point, almost any
solution is worth considering.  See if Jimmy Carter is available to
come mediate between SlimVirgin and Cla68?  All disputes to be settled
by a Mesoamerican Ballgame competition?   Personally, I think our best
hope is for the foundation to buy a giant searchlight that says "New
York Brad" on it,  shine it up into the clouds as a signal, and hope
that NYB, despite his secret identity having been exposed, will to
return to arbcom and save us all.  (ala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_signal and the general consensus that
NYB is, in fact, a supehero :) )

Alec

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

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 7/24/2008 4:23:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
wikimail@... writes:

My  answer: Adminship isn't a role at all, it's a permission.  If you
want  to compare it to something, try something like CPR  certification.>>


------------------
 
Well the problem with that is that with CPR certification you are  trained.
There's a test you must pass, its standardized to make sure you don't  assist
someone to die faster :)



**************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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Alec Conroy wrote:
> Another middle-ground that I don't think I've seen before--  eliciting
> a promise from admins to stop using their tools until being
> "re-confirmed" by a RFA or Arbcom-- BUT, keeping the bit in place,
> letting the user still be an admin, and not have the stigma.

This still leaves a harassed admin with a Hobson's choice: don't complain
about the harassment, or promise to stop using admin tools.


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

[George Herbert]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Alec Conroy wrote:
>> Another middle-ground that I don't think I've seen before--  eliciting
>> a promise from admins to stop using their tools until being
>> "re-confirmed" by a RFA or Arbcom-- BUT, keeping the bit in place,
>> letting the user still be an admin, and not have the stigma.
>
> This still leaves a harassed admin with a Hobson's choice: don't complain
> about the harassment, or promise to stop using admin tools.

This has gone far beyond a normal harrassed admin problem.


--
-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]

The community is fairly robust. The productive community especially so. The idiots will eventually get their asses kicked. This trivial drama does not have especially major impact where it matters, no will it. A sense of proportion is required. Life goes on.

CM


Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:36:38 -0700
> From: george.herbert@...
> To: wikien-l@...
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dangerous factionalism (Was: Re: SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks)
>
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Find the best and worst places on the planet
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719807/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l