Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities. There seems to be a trend of admins announcing their departure only to come back in a few days after dozens of people have posted supportive statements on their talk page. Call me cynical but this looks like manipulative trolling to me and automatic desysopping would create a disincentive. If someone really intends to leave they won't care about being desysopped - they'll even request that it be done but if somone is just pretending to leave an automatic desysopping will make them think twice.
Michel
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:57:40 -0500, "M Roget" mroget@gmail.com wrote:
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped?
Why? "Bah! Sod this, I'm off!" can mean it (in which case there is no urgency) or it can be a precursor to a Wikibreak to restore sanity. Let each case be judged on its merits, in accordance with the Clue-based principles on which the whole edifice is after all founded.
Mind you, if we auto-moderated all "I'm leaving" posts from this list, life would probably be more pleasant :-)
Guy (JzG)
I think the intent is if they claim to be perma-leaving, and they mean it, they wouldn't mind giving up their wares. If it's simply a Wikibreak, then that means they recognize that they're coming back.
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:57:40 -0500, "M Roget" mroget@gmail.com wrote:
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped?
Why? "Bah! Sod this, I'm off!" can mean it (in which case there is no urgency) or it can be a precursor to a Wikibreak to restore sanity. Let each case be judged on its merits, in accordance with the Clue-based principles on which the whole edifice is after all founded.
Mind you, if we auto-moderated all "I'm leaving" posts from this list, life would probably be more pleasant :-)
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A couple of months ago, a respected admin got fed up and announced he was leaving and gave us his sysop access. A few days later, he changed his mind and returned. When he asked for his buttons back, a bureaucrat remembered that he had been involved in some vague quarrel with some user or other and told the editor he needed to go through a new RfA, which passed with a margin of something like 106/0/0. I don't see how going through that exercise helped the community, although I'm sure the editor in question was pleased to break WP:100 on his second try.
Having a policy that once an administrator announces he or she is leaving, a new RfA is required, would have some marginal effect on deterring "I'm leaving" type announcements, but the benefits would be outweighed by the significant negatives of putting the community through pointless re-RfA's, and more importantly, of potentially deterring good people who get annoyed or burdened for whatever reason, but then decide to return, from wanting to come back or to become admins again. Often a person who makes a leaving announcement and then decides to return wants to quietly resume activity without making a big deal about being back, or maybe being teased about having changed their mind, which I have seen happen as well. And finally, sometimes a user thinks he or she needs to leave the site because of a harassment situation or legal threat or the like, and again, it would be unfair to stop such a person from coming back and picking up where he or she left off.
So I would oppose this proposed change, but of course, there's nothing to stop the proposer from suggesting it on-Wiki and seeing what the reaction is.
"Newyorkbrad"
On 12/12/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I think the intent is if they claim to be perma-leaving, and they mean it, they wouldn't mind giving up their wares. If it's simply a Wikibreak, then that means they recognize that they're coming back.
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:57:40 -0500, "M Roget" mroget@gmail.com wrote:
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped?
Why? "Bah! Sod this, I'm off!" can mean it (in which case there is no urgency) or it can be a precursor to a Wikibreak to restore sanity. Let each case be judged on its merits, in accordance with the Clue-based principles on which the whole edifice is after all founded.
Mind you, if we auto-moderated all "I'm leaving" posts from this list, life would probably be more pleasant :-)
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Mind you, if we auto-moderated all "I'm leaving" posts from this list, life would probably be more pleasant :-)
/me goes constructing an Artificial Intelligence Module which auto-moderates all potential trolls by assessing their previous posts and thus drawing conclusions about their character. Michael
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making all sorts of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to exlore that option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy, I'm not too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a certain amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves more problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will, -Luna
On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Mind you, if we auto-moderated all "I'm leaving" posts from this list, life would probably be more pleasant :-)
/me goes constructing an Artificial Intelligence Module which auto-moderates all potential trolls by assessing their previous posts and thus drawing conclusions about their character. Michael
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making all sorts of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to exlore that option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy, I'm not too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a certain amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves more problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will, -Luna
MONGO: I lost count. Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this user I'm leaving." FloNight: at least 2 instances.
I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of my head.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making all sorts of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to exlore
that
option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy, I'm
not
too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a
certain
amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves
more
problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will, -Luna
MONGO: I lost count. Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this user I'm leaving." FloNight: at least 2 instances.
I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of my head.
Having WP policy be that we punish people for what they say in discussions, other than threats and personal attacks and the like, is a bad thing. No, let me restate that more emphatically - it's a horrible, terrible idea.
I agree with Luna; while not always necessarily desirable, it's a common and fairly normal human response to extreme frustration to let off steam. It's not hurting us to let people do it. It may be irritating you, but that's not by itself a reason to take official action over it.
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making all sorts of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to exlore
that
option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy, I'm
not
too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a
certain
amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves
more
problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will, -Luna
MONGO: I lost count. Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban
this
user I'm leaving." FloNight: at least 2 instances.
I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of my
head.
Having WP policy be that we punish people for what they say in discussions, other than threats and personal attacks and the like, is a bad thing. No, let me restate that more emphatically - it's a horrible, terrible idea.
We've already stretched the definition of "personal attack" so far that I'm opposed to that being a valid reason to "punish" someone.
I agree with Luna; while not always necessarily desirable, it's a common and
fairly normal human response to extreme frustration to let off steam. It's not hurting us to let people do it. It may be irritating you, but that's not by itself a reason to take official action over it.
They should be desysopped for violating [[WP:POINT]] after the second or third occasion anyways, because it IS highly disruptive.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making
all
sorts of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to exlore
that
option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy,
I'm
not
too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a
certain
amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves
more
problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will, -Luna
MONGO: I lost count. Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban
this
user I'm leaving." FloNight: at least 2 instances.
I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of my
head.
Having WP policy be that we punish people for what they say in discussions, other than threats and personal attacks and the like, is a bad
thing. No,
let me restate that more emphatically - it's a horrible, terrible idea.
We've already stretched the definition of "personal attack" so far that I'm opposed to that being a valid reason to "punish" someone.
I agree with Luna; while not always necessarily desirable, it's a common and
fairly normal human response to extreme frustration to let off steam. It's not hurting us to let people do it. It may be irritating you, but
that's
not by itself a reason to take official action over it.
They should be desysopped for violating [[WP:POINT]] after the second or third occasion anyways, because it IS highly disruptive.
Parker
Don't be ridiculous. Saying "I will not stay here if PersonX is allowed to return to editing" isn't "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". Why should anyone tolerate the unblocking of a particularly vicious troll who has been harrassing them? Trolls should not be tolerated. If someone unblocks a troll who has stalked and harrassed a valuable editor, the victim of the harrassment shouldn't be punished.
Trolls and stalkers are disruptive. People pointing out that the community is not doing enough to protect them against trolls and stalkers are notdisruptive.
On 12/12/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making
all
sorts of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to
exlore
that
option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy,
I'm
not
too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a
certain
amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody
solves
more
problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing
to
tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will, -Luna
MONGO: I lost count. Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban
this
user I'm leaving." FloNight: at least 2 instances.
I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of my
head.
Having WP policy be that we punish people for what they say in discussions, other than threats and personal attacks and the like, is a bad
thing. No,
let me restate that more emphatically - it's a horrible, terrible
idea.
We've already stretched the definition of "personal attack" so far that I'm opposed to that being a valid reason to "punish" someone.
I agree with Luna; while not always necessarily desirable, it's a common and
fairly normal human response to extreme frustration to let off steam. It's not hurting us to let people do it. It may be irritating you, but
that's
not by itself a reason to take official action over it.
They should be desysopped for violating [[WP:POINT]] after the second or third occasion anyways, because it IS highly disruptive.
Parker
Don't be ridiculous. Saying "I will not stay here if PersonX is allowed to return to editing" isn't "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". Why should anyone tolerate the unblocking of a particularly vicious troll who has been harrassing them? Trolls should not be tolerated. If someone unblocks a troll who has stalked and harrassed a valuable editor, the victim of the harrassment shouldn't be punished.
Trolls and stalkers are disruptive. People pointing out that the community is not doing enough to protect them against trolls and stalkers are notdisruptive.
When there is a serious ongoing discussion and people have a serious difference of opinion with you, and other respected editors are saying that the person should not be banned, then YES this IS serious disruption.
Parker.
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and
making
all
sorts of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to
exlore
that
option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations
policy,
I'm
not
too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to
a
certain
amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody
solves
more
problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally
willing
to
tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will, -Luna
MONGO: I lost count. Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't
ban
this
user I'm leaving." FloNight: at least 2 instances.
I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of
my
head.
Having WP policy be that we punish people for what they say in discussions, other than threats and personal attacks and the like, is a bad
thing. No,
let me restate that more emphatically - it's a horrible, terrible
idea.
We've already stretched the definition of "personal attack" so far
that
I'm opposed to that being a valid reason to "punish" someone.
I agree with Luna; while not always necessarily desirable, it's a
common
and
fairly normal human response to extreme frustration to let off steam. It's not hurting us to let people do it. It may be irritating you, but
that's
not by itself a reason to take official action over it.
They should be desysopped for violating [[WP:POINT]] after the second
or
third occasion anyways, because it IS highly disruptive.
Parker
Don't be ridiculous. Saying "I will not stay here if PersonX is allowed to return to editing" isn't "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". Why should anyone tolerate the unblocking of a particularly vicious troll who has been harrassing them? Trolls should not be tolerated. If someone unblocks a troll who has stalked and harrassed a valuable editor, the victim of the harrassment shouldn't be punished.
Trolls and stalkers are disruptive. People pointing out that the community is not doing enough to protect them against trolls and stalkers are notdisruptive.
When there is a serious ongoing discussion and people have a serious difference of opinion with you, and other respected editors are saying that the person should not be banned, then YES this IS serious disruption.
Parker.
a. You are mischaracterising at least some of those situations to which you refer b. Victim-blaming isn't ok c. While being a good editor isn't a get out of jail free card (e.g., Wik), we cut good editors a lot more slack (e.g., SPUI) than we would someone who isn't here primarily to contribute to the project of building an encyclopaedia. d. We don't de-sysop for "disruption". e. Trolls deserve no protection. Stalkers are worse. If people stopped defending their actions, we would have less of a problem of good editors being driven away by trolls. f. (Note to self: you really really really need to learn how to recognise trolling and not reply to it)
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
MONGO: I lost count.
Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this user I'm leaving." FloNight: at least 2 instances.
I left once for about a week, and I believe FloNight left once too. Please get your facts straight.
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making all sorts of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to exlore
that
option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy, I'm
not
too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a
certain
amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves
more
problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will, -Luna
MONGO: I lost count. Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this user I'm leaving." FloNight: at least 2 instances.
I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of my head.
Parker
Happens in the real world too, it's just a part of life. People get frustrated, they threaten to leave, they calm down and on it goes. I know that some people like to think Wikipedia is some parallel universe where the laws of reality are suspended and a Utopian ideal is supreme, but Wikipedians are flesh and blood real people whose flesh and blood emotions penetrate the brane separating Wikiworld from the real world.
In other words, "it's life and life only".
Oh, and one more point: admins are volunteers, what's with the "abdicat[ing] their responsibilities" bs?
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:22:16 -0800, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves more problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Exactly that. You serve your dues, you earn a bit of slack.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:22:16 -0800, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves more problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Exactly that. You serve your dues, you earn a bit of slack.
Guy (JzG)
"A bit of slack" is one thing, the utter disregard for even the remote possibility that admins are in the wrong that I've seen? Sorry, your logic is flawed. Please retake Logic 101.
Parker
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:13:13 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
"A bit of slack" is one thing, the utter disregard for even the remote possibility that admins are in the wrong that I've seen?
Now let me guess: you got blocked and nobody would believe that it was all a terrible conspiracy against you?
Statements like yours absolutely demand dismissal. I cannot think of a single admin who is dismissive of the possibility that admins are ever in the wrong, I have however seen many cases where every admin who has ventured an opinion has agreed that a specific admin was in the right. Neither of these indicates a problem.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:13:13 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
"A bit of slack" is one thing, the utter disregard for even the remote possibility that admins are in the wrong that I've seen?
Now let me guess: you got blocked and nobody would believe that it was all a terrible conspiracy against you?
No, been blocked once for 3rr, freely admitted I messed up.
Statements like yours absolutely demand dismissal.
Statements like yours do too. Or you can quit being dismissive and start acting in better faith and discussing things reasonably.
I cannot think of
a single admin who is dismissive of the possibility that admins are ever in the wrong,
Try a mirror.
I have however seen many cases where every admin
who has ventured an opinion has agreed that a specific admin was in the right. Neither of these indicates a problem.
The frequency of occurrence puts the lie to your handwaving and pointless statement.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:22:16 -0800, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves
more
problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
Exactly that. You serve your dues, you earn a bit of slack.
Guy (JzG)
"A bit of slack" is one thing, the utter disregard for even the remote possibility that admins are in the wrong that I've seen? Sorry, your logic is flawed. Please retake Logic 101.
Parker
The illogical preaching logic? Oh, the irony.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:54:22 -0500, "Jim Schuler" jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
The illogical preaching logic? Oh, the irony.
Yup. Since the mods won't do it, I'm putting the troll in the killfile. First time for this list!
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:54:22 -0500, "Jim Schuler" jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
The illogical preaching logic? Oh, the irony.
Yup. Since the mods won't do it, I'm putting the troll in the killfile. First time for this list!
Guy (JzG)
Yes, because apparently anyone who disagrees with YOU is automatically a "troll." Would that we could all have such godlike omniscience like you, as to never be wrong again.
Parker
On 12/12/06, M Roget mroget@gmail.com wrote:
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities. There seems to be a trend of admins announcing their departure only to come back in a few days after dozens of people have posted supportive statements on their talk page. Call me cynical but this looks like manipulative trolling to me and automatic desysopping would create a disincentive. If someone really intends to leave they won't care about being desysopped - they'll even request that it be done but if somone is just pretending to leave an automatic desysopping will make them think twice.
Michel
I see this as a very valid option. It'd certainly be a disincentive to a large amount of drama.
And no, I don't see my circumstances as different. Unlike them, I haven't come back to wikipedia itself. And if this were to be adopted, I'd cheerfully smile as my account was desysopped.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, M Roget mroget@gmail.com wrote:
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities. There seems to be a trend of admins announcing their departure only to come back in a few days after dozens of people have posted supportive statements on their talk page. Call me cynical but this looks like manipulative trolling to me and automatic desysopping would create a disincentive. If someone really intends to leave they won't care about being desysopped - they'll even request that it be done but if somone is just pretending to leave an automatic desysopping will make them think twice.
Michel
I see this as a very valid option. It'd certainly be a disincentive to a large amount of drama.
And no, I don't see my circumstances as different. Unlike them, I haven't come back to wikipedia itself.
Trolling wiken-l is hardly leaving.
And if this were to be adopted, I'd cheerfully smile as my account was desysopped.
Parker
An empty offer, since it could only happen if you had a sysop account to begin with.
Jay.
On 12/12/06, *George Herbert* george.herbert at gmail.com <wikien-l%40Wikipedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Admins%20who%20pretend%20to%20quit%20%28was%20Re%3A%20MONGO%20and%20the%0A%09ArbComm%29&In-Reply-To=46d9b7490612121324x44948df2h1aaaa3d5d96b4e28%40mail.gmail.com>: * *
Having WP policy be that we punish people for what they say in discussions, other than threats and personal attacks and the like, is a bad thing. No, let me restate that more emphatically - it's a horrible, terrible idea.
I agree with Luna; while not always necessarily desirable, it's a common and fairly normal human response to extreme frustration to let off steam. It's not hurting us to let people do it. It may be irritating you, but that's not by itself a reason to take official action over it.
It's not punishment though but housekeeping and assuming good faith by assuming that someone actually means what they say.
If an admin account becomes inactive then it is desysopped as amatter of course. The difference here is we would be taking people at their word so if they say "I quit" their account's admin permissions are removed as a matter of course. If they change their mind and want to come back to wikipedia and regain admin status they can go through an RFA.
If someone doesn't really mean it when they say "I quit" they shouldn't say it and if what they're really doing is going on a wikibreak then they should say "I'm going on a wikibreak".
Michel
On Dec 12, 2006, at 1:57 PM, M Roget wrote:
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities. There seems to be a trend of admins announcing their departure only to come back in a few days after dozens of people have posted supportive statements on their talk page. Call me cynical but this looks like manipulative trolling to me and automatic desysopping would create a disincentive. If someone really intends to leave they won't care about being desysopped - they'll even request that it be done but if somone is just pretending to leave an automatic desysopping will make them think twice.
Michel
I don't like this. First, because I would have been desyopped, second, because very upsetting things happen in the normal course of events and having been worked over once, they would under that policy be worked over twice. The people who get upset are often our very best. How could you not get upset at some of the nonsense?
Fred
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote: [snip]
I don't like this. First, because I would have been desyopped, second, because very upsetting things happen in the normal course of events and having been worked over once, they would under that policy be worked over twice. The people who get upset are often our very best. How could you not get upset at some of the nonsense?
Since when did anyone propose we desysop anyone for simply being upset?
M Roget wrote:
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities.
I used to be a manager; if I knew a valued employee was under some kind of overwhelming personal or professional stress, and they said "I quit", I'd say "go home and chill out, let's talk about it in a few days". Just as for companies, WP has a significant investment in experienced people, and it's foolish to throw it away on a whim. As they say in the military, everybody breaks under torture, and we've been way too tolerant of sadistic nutcases who will stop at nothing to get their way.
Stan
On 12/12/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote: [snip]
Just as for companies, WP has a significant investment in experienced people, and it's foolish to throw it away on a whim.
Who suggested banning people for qutting?
As they say in the military, everybody breaks under torture, and we've been way too tolerant of sadistic nutcases who will stop at nothing to get their way.
We can improve this by reducing our tolerance, but part of that is reducing our tolerance for the complete cycle of drama and hate. It's harder to be hard line on our trolls when our 'best' are constantly operating at the edge and acting like children.
On Dec 12, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
We can improve this by reducing our tolerance, but part of that is reducing our tolerance for the complete cycle of drama and hate. It's harder to be hard line on our trolls when our 'best' are constantly operating at the edge and acting like children.
Now you are starting to grapple with MONGO.
Fred
Generals fighting among themselves have abandoned what they are there to defend.
From: "Gregory Maxwell" gmaxwell@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:08:26 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins who pretend to quit (was Re: MONGO and the ArbComm)
It's harder to be hard line on our trolls when our 'best' are constantly operating at the edge and acting like children.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 12/12/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote: [snip]
Just as for companies, WP has a significant investment in experienced people, and it's foolish to throw it away on a whim.
Who suggested banning people for qutting?
Not me - how do you get "banning" out of what I wrote?
As they say in the military, everybody breaks under torture, and we've been way too tolerant of sadistic nutcases who will stop at nothing to get their way.
We can improve this by reducing our tolerance, but part of that is reducing our tolerance for the complete cycle of drama and hate. It's harder to be hard line on our trolls when our 'best' are constantly operating at the edge and acting like children.
True enough. Very much a chicken-and-egg thing. The good part is that trolls are completely useless, so you're not losing anything by just getting rid of them.
Stan
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We can improve this by reducing our tolerance, but part of that is reducing our tolerance for the complete cycle of drama and hate. It's harder to be hard line on our trolls when our 'best' are constantly operating at the edge and acting like children.
In the abstract, I agree that we need to find ways to apply directional advice to project participants (editors and admins) which reduces the spectacular flameouts which have become popular of late. These are not doing anyone, or the project, any good.
That said, I think that your idea for how to do that is counterproductive and dangerous. This particular aspect of it is, in my opinion, harmless to moderately beneficial, and a minor symptom.
On 12/13/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
In the abstract, I agree that we need to find ways to apply directional advice to project participants (editors and admins) which reduces the spectacular flameouts which have become popular of late. These are not doing anyone, or the project, any good.
We agree.
That said, I think that your idea for how to do that is counterproductive and dangerous. This particular aspect of it is, in my opinion, harmless to moderately beneficial, and a minor symptom.
Okay, I don't see it your way but I respect your position.
I think that, as a result of our environment, far too many people feel like they are the sole defenders of the Wiki. I think the impossibility of success as a sole defender is causing people to exhibit a pattern of volatility and highly emotional responses which are counter productive, something of a sole defender syndrome.
I think that whatever the causes, we should be desysoping people once they have become clearly burnt out. We will probably disagree on that, and thats okay with me. Perhaps we could find more consensus on approaches to avoiding the burn out before it happens? What could we change overall to reduce this?
I'd respond to this, as I think this is a very good point, but the censorists have decided my messages shall all vanish into the ether.
Parker
On 12/13/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/13/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
In the abstract, I agree that we need to find ways to apply directional advice to project participants (editors and admins) which reduces the spectacular flameouts which have become popular of late. These are not doing anyone, or the project, any good.
We agree.
That said, I think that your idea for how to do that is counterproductive and dangerous. This particular aspect of it is, in my opinion, harmless to moderately beneficial, and a minor symptom.
Okay, I don't see it your way but I respect your position.
I think that, as a result of our environment, far too many people feel like they are the sole defenders of the Wiki. I think the impossibility of success as a sole defender is causing people to exhibit a pattern of volatility and highly emotional responses which are counter productive, something of a sole defender syndrome.
I think that whatever the causes, we should be desysoping people once they have become clearly burnt out. We will probably disagree on that, and thats okay with me. Perhaps we could find more consensus on approaches to avoiding the burn out before it happens? What could we change overall to reduce this? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Parker Peters wrote:
I'd respond to this, as I think this is a very good point, but the censorists have decided my messages shall all vanish into the ether.
Oh, the irony...
Elapsed time between when message was written, and when message reached list: 26 hours. ] Oh, the irony that someone named Alphax spends all his time flaming the messenger rather than dealing in good faith with the problems brought up.
Parker
On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Parker Peters wrote:
I'd respond to this, as I think this is a very good point, but the censorists have decided my messages shall all vanish into the ether.
Oh, the irony...
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Parker Peters wrote:
Elapsed time between when message was written, and when message reached list: 26 hours.
But, it reached the list, when you said that all your messages were being vanished...
Oh, the irony that someone named Alphax spends all his time flaming the messenger rather than dealing in good faith with the problems brought up.
I don't deal with those sorts of problems.
On 12/12/06, M Roget mroget@gmail.com wrote:
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities. There seems to be a trend of admins announcing their departure only to come back in a few days after dozens of people have posted supportive statements on their talk page. Call me cynical but this looks like manipulative trolling to me and automatic desysopping would create a disincentive. If someone really intends to leave they won't care about being desysopped - they'll even request that it be done but if somone is just pretending to leave an automatic desysopping will make them think twice.
Michel
I think your point of view is a fundamental misunderstanding about what an admin is. Admins don't hold special standing in our community, they are just users who have proven their ability to not go insane with the tools. If he comes back, why not let him have the tools? Admins keep the encyclopedia running and unless someone has proven to be unreliable with the tools, desysopping is a bad thing.
If you wish to prevent this kind of drama in general, make a rule that isn't admin specific, make it so for all users. What has leaving and coming back to do with adminship?
--Oskar
On 12/12/06, M Roget mroget@gmail.com wrote:
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities. There seems to be a trend of admins announcing their departure only to come back in a few days after dozens of people have posted supportive statements on their talk page. Call me cynical but this looks like manipulative trolling to me and automatic desysopping would create a disincentive. If someone really intends to leave they won't care about being desysopped - they'll even request that it be done but if somone is just pretending to leave an automatic desysopping will make them think twice.
It's of course manipulative (it is common on all internet forums — "Goodbye, internet! I quit!") but that's not necessarily a good reason to de-sysop. The temptation to make a big stink and slam the door on the way out is always going to be there. I'm not sure adding punishments to something which was already provoked by acrimony would solve much or help much. Usually such huffs are made in a moment of high emotions; I think we should all be allowed a little slack in things we do and say when we are upset. For repeat-repeat-repeat offenders it might be a sign of inability to cooperate with others, but I suspect that's relatively rare, definitely not worth making a new rule about.
It's manipulative but most people see it for what it is. I don't think it has any real negative effects on the 'pedia or the community. I think that adding punishments probably would, in the long run. Better to just add it to the neverending list of "annoying things people do on the internet" and leave it at that.
FF