On 2/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
Can you give concrete examples of admins being "overtly hostile to part-time editors"? And if you can produce such examples, are these the exception, or the rule?
Indeed. List any such cases (that's the put-up-or-shut-up bit) and see if these can be dealt with by less than apocalyptic means first (that's the assume good faith in the admins as well bit).
There's a lot of unspecified accusations in this thread and very little in the way of concrete examples at all.
- d.
There are plenty of examples all over Wikipedia where admin abuse are reported, admin user RfC is an excellent example, but so is ArbCom. Unspecified accusations? What specifically is unspecified? You're stating that admins are perfect, the admin system is perfect?
I've had some incredibly ridiculous stuff said to me by Wikipedia editors and supported by admins, before I saw this situation. Part-time editors readily see it, and others who aren't won't ever see it, because they're not looking for it, or they're trying damned hard not to see it. If you want to look for particular instances to specifically discredit me, my user name is KP Botany, so feel free to peruse my edit history.
But an excellent example is that when a new or part-time editor has an issue they are required to use policy to resolve the issue, when a regular or long term editor has an issue that might require administrator intervention they feel free to gather up their friendly neighborhood administrator to take care of the matter. Look at administrator talk pages anywhere on Wikipedia and see that inspite of there being places to request page protection, vandalism, 3rr, administrators are routinely requested to do this on their talk pages. This is an unwritten rule of Wikipedia never shared with newcomers: don't bother with policy, schmooze (hope that ain't Yiddish) an admin to address any issues that you run up against.
Anything but discuss the issue, or even consider that administratorship of the elite might not be ideal for an encyclopedia with Wikipedia's aspirations: deny it, attack the accuser, ignore it. But it could never be a problem with admins on Wikipedia, could it? Run, run, run, run away from that idea.
I think a really good example, though, is the douche-bag incident, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee And probably exactly what you are seeking, any personal beefs I may have with administrators. I don't, however, think InShaneee or Khoikhoi are that important but simply symptoms of a larger issue. And I don't think devoting time to specific issues, which is what Wikipedia RfC and ArbCom are set up for, addresses the issue, which is what this mailing list should be addressing, instead of doing anything but address the issue.
Current RfCs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tr%C3%B6del
Although I haven't looked it or the others over. Multiple accusations of administrator abuse all of the time on AN/I, many bogus, but some solid reports.
I think that if you don't see any swaggering by administrators, or any abuse of powers by administrators, you're trying hard not to look at it.
AN/I:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:an/i
One of the complaints that I notice is when administrators protect pages in which they are involved in edit disputes, or block users they are having issues with.
I'm not looking for it in particular, but I am very concerned about administrator abuse--it detracts highly from what I think Wikipedia should be: and encyclopedia anybody can edit. I've found my comfort zone on Wikipedia: uber aggressive--it keeps the bullies out of my face. But it makes visits to Wikipedia uncomfortable.
Administrators are complained about all the time all over Wikipedia. If you're not seeing it, you're making certain you aren't.
KP