Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Leif Knutsen Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.
Hear hear!
There are some admins who shouldn't be. They got there because they are good editors, not because they are good at being admins. When an admin uses his powers to win edit wars and harass those with whom he disagrees, it's time to reassess that editor's role in the project.
I fear the day when a group of people will say "Hey! Let's all become admins on Wikipedia! All we have to do is revert vandalism for an hour for three months, and then we can all become admins and trash the place!" Actually, I wonder why it hasn't happened already.
I something to say about that.
JzG replies in another email: "Some people think it has "
There was a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia 3RR. Some of it spilled over into my talk page. JzG was part of it and, among his complaints of me "gaming the system," he left this message about me: "Yes, wasting everyone's time. Including removing the part of [[Wikipedia:Revert]] which supports the content you want to remove from [[WP:3RR]]. Do it again and you ''will'' be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [JzG] 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)"
I didn't remove any content from Wikipedia:Revert, but that is what JzG claimed. That was also based on the time when Katefan0 dropped an e-mail here and claimed I edit-warred after an edit of the 3RR page. Every change made by a few editors was reverted.
I have yet to see on bit of attempt of genuine compromise on the issues the we have presented. However, it would be hard to fine. Without too much more detail of that issue, we do see there are admins, like JzG, that have crossed the line and harassed users, like me, of a block if one tries to edit.
The first question I raise about it is: did I vandalize the page? Absolutely not.
Did I try to revert war? I made 4 different distinct edits. (1) to add a comment about to use to the talk page conservatively after being reverted once, (2) I removed a piece on the Wikipedia:3RR that is clearly redundant and has caused problems with confusion over the 3RR. (That was "Revert in this context means..." which is also stated again later in the "Detail" section.) (3) to add the tag "Contradiction" because Wikipedia:revert clearly defined a revert one way but the 3RR page tries to redefine it with "Reverting is this context means..." (4) tried to add a tag "ActiveDiscuss" to advertise these issues that other editors and me see either as holes in the 3RR or as consfusion.
Each edit I made above was reverted. Very little, if any, explaination was given on the 3RR talk page. There was a lot of unproductive talk with other that accused us as "gaming the system," "edit warriors," and other things. Not that I won't, but I have yet to make another edit to Wikipedia:3RR to try to resolve where I found people to have issues with the text.
We don't have to fear of the day to come because it is hear. It happens. Just that the notion of "trash" is where the harassment is used to push a point or to get other editors not to be bold.
Personally, I feel it is utter childish for anybody to protect a page so dearly to even cast any form of harassment. Wikipedia is still under development. There are goals and plans already stated of where the software aims to go. For admins or other users to blow up over those that edit pages is really a horror.
I remember when I used to get onto LambdaMOO long time ago. There where lots of people that could logon and change things around. Some permissions existed to prevent total openness, but anybody could create objects and program them. There one user that really made the headlines. He decided to make an "experiment room." He invented people to his chat area on LambdaMoo. Once in the chat area, he had permissions to control objects in his area -- even the "characters" object. He had an object called "the jar." He would act like a clown and "stuff" people into the jar. Those that were submersed into the online context got a "probed" type of alien abduction experience. It's quite normal to get submersed into a book or movie, and this is interactive fiction -- or, at least, the story is but the reality of the text being display that effects the persons stimuli is FACT.
The clown guy eventually got kicked-out and a few investigations of online abduction in context took place. It's real.
This is what I see happen at Wikipedia. People are pretty drawn into the conversations that develop. Once some "action" is taken by an admin or ArbCom or such, the submersion leads to such "probed" and other undesired stimulation. Not everybody gets submersed by the context, but the fact is that it happens and we should take care. Even the little flame wars and such can have effects that trigger likewise behavoir of this clown stated above. It wasn't a funny clown, and this "trash" isn't either.
I haven't lost hope for Wikipedia. Even as popular as it has become, it's still under development. Most admins and other users I run into are very friendly.
I feel that sometimes the admins options have become a matter of convenience rather than a continued need to discuss issues. If this wasn't true, there would be no wheel wars.
People have different ways to edit articles. Instead of "suspicious admin behavior," we can specifically find that there are admins (as well as non-admins) that try to force people to edit in a particular style. We should have the freedom to choose our own style -- it's a wiki.