On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote: [...]
Lar is foolish, IMO, to contribute to WR; it's a shifting mess of crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking. On the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this case.
I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time and place. This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.
The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has broken down rather badly and completely. There is nothing more dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.
We have a pair of double-edged swords in play. Both the investigation of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the investigation of abuses within the community require investigators (editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or external troublemakers.
The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.
Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that (a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).
I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting Wikipedia's goals and community.
I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more involved than we are). Determine whether the factions have become sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.
It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.
It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone involved. Myself certainly included. I hope not Larry or Allison - I personally have high regard for their support for the project and community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.
If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with the resources at hand. I put forth that this is already in play, though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've been playing.
Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make the center hold on this.
What I will say is that [[WP:ENC]] has been completely forgotten in all of this. WR, SlimVirgin, Sidaway's civility, Lar's checkusers...who cares? Just do your job as admins, folks: keep the encyclopedicity of the site intact. If you're not doing that, what good are you doing?
CMOdi profanum vulgus et arceo.> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:48:17 -0700> From: george.herbert@gmail.com> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Dangerous factionalism (Was: Re: SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks)> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:> [...]> > Lar is foolish, IMO, to contribute to WR; it's a shifting mess of> > crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with> > paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking. On> > the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I> > feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening> > impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this> > case.> > I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the> pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted> to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time> and place. This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.> > The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of> our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has> broken down rather badly and completely. There is nothing more> dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have> both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the> motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.> > We have a pair of double-edged swords in play. Both the investigation> of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the> investigation of abuses within the community require investigators> (editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and> engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of> either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or> external troublemakers.> > The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each> other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.> > Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat> associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception> and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that> (a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed> block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in> retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).> > I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to> what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external> threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting> Wikipedia's goals and community.> > I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this> - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out> as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably> as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more> involved than we are). Determine whether the factions have become> sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this> needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.> > It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.> > It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone> involved. Myself certainly included. I hope not Larry or Allison - I> personally have high regard for their support for the project and> community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an> honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.> > If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve> into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with> the resources at hand. I put forth that this is already in play,> though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've> been playing.> > Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make> the center hold on this.> > > -- > -george william herbert> george.herbert@gmail.com> > _______________________________________________> WikiEN-l mailing list> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _________________________________________________________________ 100’s of Nikon cameras to be won with Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719808/direct/01/
[[WP:ENC]] has got completely forgotten in all this. Sidaway's civility, Wikipedia Review, SlimVirgin's cabalistic tendencies, Lar's checkusers...who cares? Our job as admins is to maintain the encyclopedicity of the site, not to play silly political games. That seems to have been lost sight of. If you're not doing maintaining encyclopedicity, then what good are you doing?
CM
I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the> pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted> to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time> and place. This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.> > The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of> our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has> broken down rather badly and completely. There is nothing more> dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have> both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the> motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.> > We have a pair of double-edged swords in play. Both the investigation> of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the> investigation of abuses within the community require investigators> (editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and> engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of> either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or> external troublemakers.> > The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each> other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.> > Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat> associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception> and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that> (a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed> block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in> retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).> > I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to> what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external> threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting> Wikipedia's goals and community.> > I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this> - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out> as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably> as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more> involved than we are). Determine whether the factions have become> sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this> needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.> > It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.> > It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone> involved. Myself certainly included. I hope not Larry or Allison - I> personally have high regard for their support for the project and> community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an> honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.> > If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve> into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with> the resources at hand. I put forth that this is already in play,> though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've> been playing.> > Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make> the center hold on this.> > > -- > -george william herbert> george.herbert@gmail.com
_________________________________________________________________ The John Lewis Clearance - save up to 50% with FREE delivery http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719806/direct/01/
2008/7/21 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
[[WP:ENC]] has got completely forgotten in all this. Sidaway's civility, Wikipedia Review, SlimVirgin's cabalistic tendencies, Lar's checkusers...who cares? Our job as admins is to maintain the encyclopedicity of the site, not to play silly political games. That seems to have been lost sight of. If you're not doing maintaining encyclopedicity, then what good are you doing?
May I add also the Rule of wikien-l: "If you bring a dispute to wikien-l as the latest forum, you may already have lost." It's a place to float ideas, not a part of the dispute resolution process.
- d.
Well, in fairness to Sarah, this most recent set of threads was begun by David Katz and not her.
Nathan
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:46 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/21 Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk:
[[WP:ENC]] has got completely forgotten in all this. Sidaway's civility,
Wikipedia Review, SlimVirgin's cabalistic tendencies, Lar's checkusers...who cares? Our job as admins is to maintain the encyclopedicity of the site, not to play silly political games. That seems to have been lost sight of. If you're not doing maintaining encyclopedicity, then what good are you doing?
May I add also the Rule of wikien-l: "If you bring a dispute to wikien-l as the latest forum, you may already have lost." It's a place to float ideas, not a part of the dispute resolution process.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/21/08, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
[[WP:ENC]] has got completely forgotten in all this. Sidaway's civility, Wikipedia Review, SlimVirgin's cabalistic tendencies, Lar's checkusers...who cares? Our job as admins is to maintain the encyclopedicity of the site, not to play silly political games. That seems to have been lost sight of. If you're not doing maintaining encyclopedicity, then what good are you doing?
I've been trying to do more of this the last few months.
Sticking my head in the sand and hoping that the dumb politics would go away didn't work. I advise the rest of you not to ignore it either. This is bad for the community. It needs to stop.
The community is fairly robust. The productive community especially so. The idiots will eventually get their asses kicked. This trivial drama does not have especially major impact where it matters, no will it. A sense of proportion is required. Life goes on.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:36:38 -0700 From: george.herbert@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dangerous factionalism (Was: Re: SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks)
On 7/21/08, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
[[WP:ENC]] has got completely forgotten in all this. Sidaway's civility, Wikipedia Review, SlimVirgin's cabalistic tendencies, Lar's checkusers...who cares? Our job as admins is to maintain the encyclopedicity of the site, not to play silly political games. That seems to have been lost sight of. If you're not doing maintaining encyclopedicity, then what good are you doing?
I've been trying to do more of this the last few months.
Sticking my head in the sand and hoping that the dumb politics would go away didn't work. I advise the rest of you not to ignore it either. This is bad for the community. It needs to stop.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Find the best and worst places on the planet http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719807/direct/01/
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:48 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote: [...]
Lar is foolish, IMO, to contribute to WR; it's a shifting mess of crazy and often malice, and I feel that listening and engaging with paranoids and obsessives to that degree can affect one's thinking. On the other hand, I do not think he's doing so with any bad intent; I feel it has to do with a belief in engaging critics and listening impartially to all sides – noble intentions even if a bad idea in this case.
I've been looking in at the Arbcom case on the principals in the pro/anti WR guerilla war going on on-wiki recently, thinking I wanted to make a statement but somewhat afraid that there was no good time and place. This comment of Matthew's is prompting me to do so.
The situation regarding a number of our external critics, a number of our external threats, and how wiki community members respond has broken down rather badly and completely. There is nothing more dangerous for a community than two strong factions to form which have both become shades of grey and who both completely distrust the motives of the other one, and where civility breaks down.
We have a pair of double-edged swords in play. Both the investigation of legitimate external threats to the Wiki's stability and the investigation of abuses within the community require investigators (editors, admins, checkusers, arbcom members) who are aware and engaged with problems, but who avoid falling into the dual traps of either actually or apparently acting as proxies for internal or external troublemakers.
The situation has led to senior editors and administrators at each other's throats in an increasingly dangerous manner.
Before we proceed, I should disclose that I believe that I am somewhat associated with one faction of this historically (both in perception and reality) and have made mistakes in judgement associated with that (a factual mistake that led to a questionable but rapidly reversed block, for example, and having defended someone for a long time who in retrospect clearly was abusing a lot of people's trusts).
I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting Wikipedia's goals and community.
I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this
- "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out
as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more involved than we are). Determine whether the factions have become sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.
It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.
It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone involved. Myself certainly included. I hope not Larry or Allison - I personally have high regard for their support for the project and community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.
If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with the resources at hand. I put forth that this is already in play, though few of us are fully aware of its scope or the roles that we've been playing.
Arbcom and the Community have to put the stake in the ground and make the center hold on this.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Broadly, concur. Though unsure the best response. Ban all would be a bit draconian. It would need considerable thought whether it was resolvable by any lesser means than deciding "you you and you are major players on both sides, consider yourself temp banned".
FT2
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, FT2 wrote:
Broadly, concur. Though unsure the best response. Ban all would be a bit draconian. It would need considerable thought whether it was resolvable by any lesser means than deciding "you you and you are major players on both sides, consider yourself temp banned".
"Punish everyone involved" is common in the schoolyard.
Which is not a positive comparison. Because it leads to serious injustice in the schoolyard, when a kid gets bullied, complains about it, and the teachers punish both the bully and the victim.
A response which says "punish them whether they're the victim or the perpetrator" values not making a fuss over justice. If you're going to do that, why even admit that there's such a thing as misuse of privileges at all? You obviously don't care about stopping it, after all.
On 7/22/08, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, FT2 wrote: "Punish everyone involved" is common in the schoolyard.
Which is not a positive comparison.
But does desysopping really have to be a punishment? Can't it just be a change in job title? A request, from the project, that an individual step back from the stressful job of managing inter-user conflict and devote all their efforts to encyclopedia work?
Is it possible a desysopping could be as simple as "We think you could be more useful to the team as an editor than an administrator?"
If there are any desysopping of long-time contributors, I hope they're done in the form of: "You've been heroic, you've fought a good fight, and we think you've completed your tour of duty. We've noticed you're a little shell-shocked, it's time for you to have some R&R and get out of the theater of combat, so we're going to do a strategic redeployment"
Fundamentally, the administrator's job is one of inter-user conflict resolution. So maybe it makes sense to ask some admins to step away from the stressful (and extremely complex) job of conflict resolution and just focus exclusively on the more straightforward task of building an encyclopedia.
In some departments, a police office who suffers a severe trauma will automatically be transferred to a desk job for a while. It's not a punishment, it's a way of saying "anybody who went through what you've been through needs a break from having to resolve conflict".
Of course, I realize anyone who is ever desysopped will probably have some hurt feelings and will, on some level, feel "punished"-- but I really don't think it _has_ to be a punishment. Not really. On some levels, a desysopping really can be a matter of "We could really use your help more over here".
That may not solve the factionalism, but it would be a start. Getting the people who are a little too-factionalized off the front lines and away from day-in day-out inter-user-conflict would have to help mend rifts in the community. Maybe problems will persist, but on the other hand, maybe factions would start the fade once people were no longer assigned to the realm of inter-user conflict in the role of admins.
Just my thought.
Alec
2008/7/22 Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
On 7/22/08, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, FT2 wrote: "Punish everyone involved" is common in the schoolyard.
Which is not a positive comparison.
But does desysopping really have to be a punishment? Can't it just be a change in job title? A request, from the project, that an individual step back from the stressful job of managing inter-user conflict and devote all their efforts to encyclopedia work?
Is it possible a desysopping could be as simple as "We think you could be more useful to the team as an editor than an administrator?"
Nope. When you are an admin people will generally in editing situations assume you know what you are talking about when it comes to matters relating to wikipedia. There is a degree of deference you receive. Once you stop being an admin that goes away.
2008/7/22 geni geniice@gmail.com:
When you are an admin people will generally in editing situations assume you know what you are talking about when it comes to matters relating to wikipedia. There is a degree of deference you receive. Once you stop being an admin that goes away.
People who worry about such things probably shouldn't be admins anyway.
-- geni
2008/7/22 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
2008/7/22 geni geniice@gmail.com:
When you are an admin people will generally in editing situations assume you know what you are talking about when it comes to matters relating to wikipedia. There is a degree of deference you receive. Once you stop being an admin that goes away.
People who worry about such things probably shouldn't be admins anyway.
-- -Ian Woollard
Its not a question of worrying about them it is a question of them existing at all.
On 7/22/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/22 Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
Is it possible a desysopping could be as simple as "We think you could be more useful to the team as an editor than an administrator?"
Nope. When you are an admin people will generally in editing situations assume you know what you are talking about when it comes to matters relating to wikipedia. There is a degree of deference you receive. Once you stop being an admin that goes away.
Perhaps we would want to invoke the status of Former Admin or Retired Admin or Honorably-Discharged Admin.
It just occurs to me that desysoppings should be de-stigmatized, insofar as possible. (perhaps that's not very far). Speaking totally in the abstract, there are going to be lots of very valued contributors who make it pass RFA but who, it turns out, don't do so well at the admin job.
In general, a desysopping is often interpreted as "You screwed up badly, repeatedly. We're very mad at you, and we're taking your tools away".
But maybe there's room for "Good work. You got a lot done. We appreciate it. It's probably best for the project if you let the rest of us take it from here".
Alec
Alec Conroy wrote:
In general, a desysopping is often interpreted as "You screwed up badly, repeatedly. We're very mad at you, and we're taking your tools away".
But maybe there's room for "Good work. You got a lot done. We appreciate it. It's probably best for the project if you let the rest of us take it from here".
It's hard to interpret it that way, though. Asking someone not to do X or Y in the future is one thing, but invoking technical measures to literally prevent them from doing X or Y in the future is hard to interpret as anything but "we distrust you so thoroughly that we feel we need to take protective measures through the software against you".
-Mark
On 7/22/08, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Alec Conroy wrote:
But maybe there's room for "Good work. You got a lot done. We appreciate it. It's probably best for the project if you let the rest of us take it from here".
It's hard to interpret it that way, though. Asking someone not to do X or Y in the future is one thing, but invoking technical measures to literally prevent them from doing X or Y in the future is hard to interpret as anything but "we distrust you so thoroughly that we feel we need to take protective measures through the software against you".
No, no-- you're right. Nobody is really going to be too happy about be desysopped under any circumstances. It's hard to find a way to mend a factionalized community.
That's why, I imagine, the C68-FM-SV case has lasted two months without being resolved. It's all well and good to point out the simpler problems, but as to the deeper issue of the division and faction-forming-- even if you could agree on the facts, it's still not at all clear what the best course of action to take would be.
My only humble suggestion is maybe to ask people to get out of the behavior-control game by honorably/voluntarily retiring them from adminship. Even then, I don't know if it would help-- when you consider the factionalism crisis that George Herbert describes, only a small portion involved the actual use of admin powers.
But certainly, doing nothing DEFINITELY won't help. By my count, the same basic dispute has been going on for about two years now?, give or take? No end in sight.
Alec
2008/7/22 Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com:
My only humble suggestion is maybe to ask people to get out of the behavior-control game by honorably/voluntarily retiring them from adminship.
Problem is we have already had to introduce the resigned under a cloud clause so voluntarily retiring isn't going to work.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps we would want to invoke the status of Former Admin or Retired Admin or Honorably-Discharged Admin.
It just occurs to me that desysoppings should be de-stigmatized, insofar as possible. (perhaps that's not very far). Speaking totally in the abstract, there are going to be lots of very valued contributors who make it pass RFA but who, it turns out, don't do so well at the admin job.
In general, a desysopping is often interpreted as "You screwed up badly, repeatedly. We're very mad at you, and we're taking your tools away".
But maybe there's room for "Good work. You got a lot done. We appreciate it. It's probably best for the project if you let the rest of us take it from here".
But it's up to the community to decide that this is the case to begin with... and then wouldn't the community just know this to be the fact, without require some sort of special status? The only value such a status would have as far as I can tell would be to inform new users that so-and-so former-admin did a good job. And I would expect that if somebody new read so far to know that they were a previous admin, they would also know the surrounding circumstances.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Alec Conroy wrote:
But does desysopping really have to be a punishment? Can't it just be a change in job title? A request, from the project, that an individual step back from the stressful job of managing inter-user conflict and devote all their efforts to encyclopedia work?
Is it possible a desysopping could be as simple as "We think you could be more useful to the team as an editor than an administrator?"
Whatever you call it doesn't change what it is; they had permission before, and now don't.
Taking away privileges of someone because they "participated in conflict" when their participation consists of being attacked or of reporting attacks is wrong.
And telling them that it's for their benefit is a transparent lie. You haven't really done an evaluation fo all sources of stress in that person's life and come to an informed decision that removing them would produce less stress. You're just making an excuse for something you want to do because you want to cut down on complaints about abuse, rather than cutting down on abuse.
On 7/22/08, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Alec Conroy wrote:
Is it possible a desysopping could be as simple as "We think you could be more useful to the team as an editor than an administrator?"
Whatever you call it doesn't change what it is; they had permission before, and now don't.
Taking away privileges of someone because they "participated in conflict" when their participation consists of being attacked or of reporting attacks is wrong.
Well, many users tend to think the factionalism problem is something above and beyond mere victimhood. If you deny that premise-- if you look at the situation and see straightforward "abusers are abusing the abused", then of course you have a simple straightforward course of action-- ban the evildoers. In such a case your only problem is how to convince everyone else.
If the problem is more complicated than this, however, then the solution is far less straighforward. When starting this thread, George Herbert made a convincing case that there is a trend of dangerous factionalism. if that's the case, how would we go about mending the wounds?
I don't know.
Taking the problem seriously. That'd be a start.
Not procrastinating and hoping that, left alone, the problem will just go away.
Maybe getting the most-affected people off the front lines, into places where aren't responsible for inter-user conflict, but while still assuming good faith on their part.
And telling them that it's for their benefit is a transparent lie.
Mostly, I'd say it's for the benefit of the project. But ideally it would be for the benefit of both.
If I was a janitor and was fired because I reported being harassed by another janitor, and policy was to avoid complaints by firing all people involved in the complaint, I'd think that was wrong.
Granted. But I think a better metaphor would be "in addition to sincerely pursuing your each and every one of your harassent claims, we also think it would be best for all involved if you were transferred from janitorial services to A/V Services. It's a less hostile work environment and the pay is exactly the same. :)
Alec
At 10:29 AM 7/22/2008, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Which is not a positive comparison. Because it leads to serious injustice in the schoolyard, when a kid gets bullied, complains about it, and the teachers punish both the bully and the victim.
Well, smart teachers don't punish either, and avoid deciding blame. Rather, they stop and prevent further abuse, they make sure the kids can talk about what happened in a safe place, etc., etc. And they encourage the kids to find ways to get along, or, at least, to leave each other alone. And when one kid is constantly the focus of complaints, then they need to give that some special attention.
When there is a brawl in a bar, and the police walk in, they do not attempt to figure out who caused it, whose fault it is, who is to blame, etc. They tell everyone to stop. Now. And if *anyone* doesn't stop, they arrest that person (or worse.) How often that person, being dragged off, is screaming, "But he started it!"
Perhaps. Perhaps he did start it. But you continued it, and you are still carrying it. Drop it. Or be arrested.
Our "Stop!" is warning followed by "arrest" (block) if the behavior continues. Sometimes we get totally distracted by trying to figure out who was wrong (i.e., who started it). Admins should stay out of that, almost totally. Disputes will always erupt, and, it is often possible to find out "who started it," but that actually doesn't help, much, to stop it, because before each action there is a cause, and before that cause another cause, and on without limit.
No, stop! Now! Then, when we can start to communicate civilly, we can start to resolve whatever underlying problems there are. It's not Rule Number One, but WP:CIVIL is far more important than our too-common casual tolerance of incivility might indicate.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 4:48 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think that "the center" needs to reassert itself forcefully as to what behavior is acceptable both in fighting legitimate external threats and in questioning whether those fights are subverting Wikipedia's goals and community.
[snip]
It may be appropriate to ban the primary actors in both factions.
It may be appropriate to remove all admin rights from everyone involved. Myself certainly included. I hope not Larry or Allison - I personally have high regard for their support for the project and community and their good judgement and use of the tools - but take an honest look at everyone who's become wrapped up in the factionalism.
If you do not define a center and fight to hold it, this will devolve into whomever can more effectively fight a long term guerilla war with the resources at hand.
The danger here is that this "center" will evolve into another "faction".