<html>
I have been trying to follow the list-serve discussion of this, and have
gone through the talk-page and page history of DNA, and admit that I may
be missing some facts. The whole thing is overwhelming.
Unless this discussion ends with some sort of productive resolution, a
whole lot of capable people will have wasted an awful lot of time.
This distresses me.<br><br>
As I see it, there are really three different issues here and it would be
unconstructive to reduce it to one, even if that one were the one that
started it all:<br>
1) a conflict between 168 and Lir over the content of the DNA
article<br>
2) a conflict between 168 and Mav over the process of editing an
article<br>
3) a conflict between 168 and Erik over the rights and responsibilities
of a sysop<br><br>
As for the first conflict, I have little to say except I myself have been
involved in revert wars with both parties. In my experience, 168
knows more about molecular biology and I respect his knowledge.
<br><br>
As for the second conflict, I must confess that some time ago I was
caught up in a revert war with 168 concerning genes and drift.
Obviously I am biased, but my experience was that it is practically
impossible to work with 168 because s/he is highly resistant to
compromise. But compromise is a <i>crucial</i> value for a
community project. We have to be able to distinguish between factual
knowledge and process -- not because facts are unimportant but because
each of us has to admit that we may not know all the facts and that
another contributor might have something important to offer. This
is even more important when it comes to style (i.e., a matter over which
no one has particular expertise; that is, a molecular biochemist may have
authority in molecular biochemistry, but not necessarily in style).
I agree that ultimately there was an edit war between Lir and 168 that
has to be resolved, and that the merits of the DNA article provide the
basis for resolving it. But there is a larger issue which is how to
work with others, and I am very concerned that 168 cannot work well with
Mav who, besides being quite knowledgeable about biology, is clearly
someone who is devoted to wikipedia and a congenial member of the
community.<br><br>
As for the third matter, do I understand correctly that Erik merely
de-sysoped 168? It seems to me that he did so with good
cause. Perhaps there should have been dome discussion first, but
really, things did seem to be getting out of hand. One reason for
clear policies is to ensure that we don't have to get bogged down in
endless discussion. Perhaps some want to revisit the matter of a
de-sysop policy -- okay, that certainly merits discussion. But
de-sysoping isn't, in my mind, so awful. I admit were I de-sysoped,
my ego would be bruised. But it wouldn't silence me, I could still
work on articles like most people; I don't think of de-sysoping as being
as serious as even a temporary ban, especially since it can easily be
reversed. If I were de-sysoped I would make an appeal here, to
create some general discussion, or would contact other administrators for
help. That 168 would blank Erik's pages, however, really upsets
me. It is childish and unconstructive and shows absolutely no
interest in being part of a community and working with others.<br><br>
We have a problem that keeps escalating. The three escalations all
have one person in common -- 168. Now, I hate suggesting that
someone be banned and am not saying 168 ought to be banned, especially
when he knows so much. But knowing a lot is not enough here;
contributors have to be able to work with others. Can someone
communicate with 168?<br><br>
Steve <br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Steven L. Rubenstein<br>
Associate Professor<br>
Department of Sociology and Anthropology<br>
Bentley Annex<br>
Ohio University<br>
Athens, Ohio 45701</html>