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.
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: 1) a conflict between 168 and Lir over the content of the DNA article 2) a conflict between 168 and Mav over the process of editing an article 3) a conflict between 168 and Erik over the rights and responsibilities of a sysop
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.
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 crucial 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.
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.
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?
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004