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(a)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 On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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? -- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> 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? Sorry, your logic is flawed. Please retake Logic 101. Parker

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: 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 Try a mirror. I have however seen many cases where every admin The frequency of occurrence puts the lie to your handwaving and pointless statement. Parker

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:54:22 -0500, "Jim Schuler" <jim62sch(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yup. Since the mods won't do it, I'm putting the troll in the killfile. First time for this list! Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: [snip] Since when did anyone propose we desysop anyone for simply being upset?

On 12/12/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote: [snip] Who suggested banning people for qutting? 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.

Generals fighting among themselves have abandoned what they are there to defend.

On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)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. 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. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: