Danny wrote:
I would like to nominate Slrubenstein as a sysop. He has consistently done excellent work for over a year.
I second that. So far these users have been nominated and seconded (most have also been "seconded" by more than a few other people):
User:Slrubenstein User:CatherineMunro User:Hephaestos User:The Anome User:Someone_else User:GrahamN
I'm going to try to get their consent now.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
oh, I thought Someone else, Slrubestien, and Hephestos already were sysops. As long as we're nominating people, I nominate User:Alex756. He's been a great contributer to wikipedia.
Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:Danny wrote:
I would like to nominate Slrubenstein as a sysop. He has consistently done excellent work for over a year.
I second that. So far these users have been nominated and seconded (most have also been "seconded" by more than a few other people):
User:Slrubenstein User:CatherineMunro User:Hephaestos User:The Anome User:Someone_else User:GrahamN
I'm going to try to get their consent now.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
LittleDan informed me that he nominated me, I'm not quite sure I should accept the nomination (I don't think it has been seconded). I'm a bit new here and willing to do my share of housekeeping if that is part of what being a good Wikipedian is all about, but if being a sysop is a status thing then I'm not really interested. From what I can glean about the formality of this place all nominations for sysops need to be seconded and since my nomination hasn't been seconded will it just expire at a certain point? alex756 ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Ehrenberg To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin nominations
oh, I thought Someone else, Slrubestien, and Hephestos already were sysops. As long as we're nominating people, I nominate User:Alex756. He's been a great contributer to wikipedia.
Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote: Danny wrote: >I would like to nominate Slrubenstein as a >sysop. He has consistently done excellent >work for over a year.
I second that. So far these users have been nominated and seconded (most have also been "seconded" by more than a few other people):
User:Slrubenstein User:CatherineMunro User:Hephaestos User:The Anome User:Someone_else User:GrahamN
I'm going to try to get their consent now.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Alex R. wrote:
LittleDan informed me that he nominated me, I'm not quite sure I should accept the nomination (I don't think it has been seconded). I'm a bit new here and willing to do my share of housekeeping if that is part of what being a good Wikipedian is all about, but if being a sysop is a status thing then I'm not really interested.
Part of the reason it's important that people like you become sysops is to help us keep it from being a status thing. It's a technical thing, not a status thing. Or it's supposed to be. But as long as we have a small number of sysops, it's too tempting for "us" to feel that we have to keep a special watch on "them" in a way that's very un-wiki.
Being a sysop is only a status thing in the sense that it means that you're trusted not to post obscene material on the homepage, to use certain destructive commands only in accordance with long-established custom, if at all, and that you'll help police against vandals in a gentle and caring way.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Being a sysop is only a status thing in the sense that it means that you're trusted not to post obscene material on the homepage, to use certain destructive commands only in accordance with long-established custom, if at all, and that you'll help police against vandals in a gentle and caring way.
All being behaviors that anybody could follow, without being necessary a sysop. Being gentle, caring, loving and trusted, is not the prerogative of a sysop.
Anthere (without accent please)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Anthère (but forced to be only Anthere on [[fr:]]) wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Being a sysop is only a status thing in the sense that it means that you're trusted not to post obscene material on the homepage, to use certain destructive commands only in accordance with long-established custom, if at all, and that you'll help police against vandals in a gentle and caring way.
All being behaviors that anybody could follow, without being necessary a sysop. Being gentle, caring, loving and trusted, is not the prerogative of a sysop.
Indeed, all things that anybody could and should do. But you can't become a sysop unless we *trust* that you will do them. Thus, becoming a sysop indicates that such trust exists, a status bonus. Not being a sysop hardly proves that such trust does *not* exist -- but it leaves open that possibility, so not a status bonus.
Still, you are right, we should ignore this status bonus. Being a sysop is not meant to be a status thing.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Anth�re (but forced to be only Anthere on [[fr:]]) wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Being a sysop is only a status thing in the sense
that it means that
you're trusted not to post obscene material on the
homepage, to use
certain destructive commands only in accordance
with long-established
custom, if at all, and that you'll help police
against vandals in a
gentle and caring way.
All being behaviors that anybody could follow,
without
being necessary a sysop. Being gentle, caring,
loving
and trusted, is not the prerogative of a sysop.
Indeed, all things that anybody could and should do. But you can't become a sysop unless we *trust* that you will do them. Thus, becoming a sysop indicates that such trust exists, a status bonus. Not being a sysop hardly proves that such trust does *not* exist -- but it leaves open that possibility, so not a status bonus.
Still, you are right, we should ignore this status bonus. Being a sysop is not meant to be a status thing.
-- Toby
Nod. Recently, many people were proposed to be sysops. They were mostly sold the "trust" display, rather than what syosp really is (a police force). The more sysops there are, the less trust will be granted to non sysops, imho.
This said, I deeply thank those who have expressed their trust in me :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
--- Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote:
Nod. Recently, many people were proposed to be sysops. They were mostly sold the "trust" display, rather than what syosp really is (a police force). The more sysops there are, the less trust will be granted to non sysops, imho.
This said, I deeply thank those who have expressed their trust in me :-)
I guess a sysop is more like a judge. I don't think it is fair to say that sysops are a police force. Being a policeman (or woman) implies doing something compulsively, without consent, as opposed to someone more like a judge, who consents all involved parties as well as the rules/laws, the previous precedents, and the jury (in this case the Wikipedia community). A judge isn't required to give punishment. If he wants, he can assign guilt without punishment, or even say the defendant is completely innocent of any crime and ignore the case. This is often frowned upon by the people in the jurisdiction, so there are retrials (except without the technicality that a procedural error must have been committed; that can be found in almost every case). Some may say that it is the judge's responsibility to punish people in all cases without consent or explicit reason, as the policemen (agressive sysops) try to do, but the judges know that they are better than that. They are not just here to punish, they are here to judge.
That metaphor was a little off what I originally meant to say, but now it is my new philosophy because I like the metaphor so much :-) --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
I guess a sysop is more like a judge. I don't think it is fair to say that sysops are a police force. Being a policeman (or woman) implies doing something compulsively, without consent, as opposed to someone more like a judge, who consents all involved parties as well as the rules/laws, the previous precedents, and the jury (in this case the Wikipedia community).
If sysops are going to consider themselves judges, we're going to have serious long-term problems.
I for one prefer the Jimbo-as-judge, everybody else enforce his decisions, either through force (police==sysop) or persuasion (coaching==caring user).
Otherwise we'll run into the situation of he-said she-said.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Let's not get bogged down in semantics. This may be a case where an analogy to sysop is neither needed nor helpful. After all, judges under certain circumstances have a lot of power, and police often listen to different sides in a dispute, act as mediators, and are themselves policed. If we continue on this track we may end up having a very interesting and informative conversation about the differences between police, judges, and I would then add to the mix constables. But if we are having a discussion as sysop, I have three comments.
1) I never sought out the position of sysop but given that it implied a certain amount of trust by a segment of the community I didn't feel I could turn it down. When I first saw my new screen, with all the powers suddenly at my disposal, I really felt overwhelmed, almost dizzy. Of course my first act was to abuse the power -- although I was the only victim of that abuse. I have recently had an experience where I have been sorely tempted to put a block on a page and ban a user. Obviously I did not. But -- and I realize this may be of little interest to most of you -- so far I see being a sysop as a sort of zen exercise in accepting and renouncing power.
2) But I have also deleted a couple of pages, and I know some others have been very active in this. I wanted to ban one user with what I thought was good cause, and someone else did it the next day. Since virtually everyone in the community saw that person as a pest more than as a member of the community, I'd say -- if we really must have an analogy -- I'd compare sysop to house-cleaner.
3) Whether sysop is a mop or a cop, either way I see the role as being an agent of the community. If I understand the deal right now, there is virtually nothing a sysop can do that cannot be undone by another administrator; it seems to me that virtually all sysops, if they ever act, do so when they have a sense from the community.
Anyway, aside from my periodic zen moments, it does seem to me that the job is mostly about tidying up. It seems to me that anyone can do this on a limited basis (by editing -- just like we don't expect the maid or custodian to do all cleaning), and that the other tasks (e.g. cultivating NPOV) really are for the whole community, sysop or not.
Steve
At 11:10 AM 5/23/2003 -0700, you wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
I guess a sysop is more like a judge. I don't think it is fair to say that sysops are a police force. Being a policeman (or woman) implies doing something compulsively, without consent, as opposed to someone more like a judge, who consents all involved parties as well as the rules/laws, the previous precedents, and the jury (in this case the Wikipedia community).
If sysops are going to consider themselves judges, we're going to have serious long-term problems.
I for one prefer the Jimbo-as-judge, everybody else enforce his decisions, either through force (police==sysop) or persuasion (coaching==caring user).
Otherwise we'll run into the situation of he-said she-said.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
Steven L. Rubenstein Assistant 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: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
Let's not get bogged down in semantics. This may be a case where an analogy to sysop is neither needed nor helpful. After all, judges under certain circumstances have a lot of power, and police often listen to different sides in a dispute, act as mediators, and are themselves policed. If we continue on this track we may end up having a very interesting and informative conversation about the differences between police, judges, and I would then add to the mix constables. But if we are having a discussion as sysop, I have three comments.
- I never sought out the position of sysop but
given that it implied a certain amount of trust by a segment of the community I didn't feel I could turn it down. When I first saw my new screen, with all the powers suddenly at my disposal, I really felt overwhelmed, almost dizzy. Of course my first act was to abuse the power -- although I was the only victim of that abuse. I have recently had an experience where I have been sorely tempted to put a block on a page and ban a user. Obviously I did not. But -- and I realize this may be of little interest to most of you -- so far I see being a sysop as a sort of zen exercise in accepting and renouncing power.
- But I have also deleted a couple of pages, and I
know some others have been very active in this. I wanted to ban one user with what I thought was good cause, and someone else did it the next day. Since virtually everyone in the community saw that person as a pest more than as a member of the community, I'd say -- if we really must have an analogy -- I'd compare sysop to house-cleaner.
- Whether sysop is a mop or a cop, either way I see
the role as being an agent of the community. If I understand the deal right now, there is virtually nothing a sysop can do that cannot be undone by another administrator; it seems to me that virtually all sysops, if they ever act, do so when they have a sense from the community.
Anyway, aside from my periodic zen moments, it does seem to me that the job is mostly about tidying up. It seems to me that anyone can do this on a limited basis (by editing -- just like we don't expect the maid or custodian to do all cleaning), and that the other tasks (e.g. cultivating NPOV) really are for the whole community, sysop or not.
Steve
Yeah, I guess that makes more sense than an anology. But I just realised that sysops have another, rarely used power. Sysops have power just from their name "sysop". If a sysop tells a bunch of non-sysops something, and they haven't heard the type of conversation on the mailing list (ie don't know that sysops aren't this exclusive band of 5 people who go around fixing the server and banning people), they'd probably listen to you more than a non-sysop. I don't think this power is actually used by anyone other than jimbo, though. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Yeah, I guess that makes more sense than an anology. But I just realised that sysops have another, rarely used power. Sysops have power just from their name "sysop". If a sysop tells a bunch of non-sysops something, and they haven't heard the type of conversation on the mailing list (ie don't know that sysops aren't this exclusive band of 5 people who go around fixing the server and banning people), they'd probably listen to you more than a non-sysop. I don't think this power is actually used by anyone other than jimbo, though.
This kind of intimidation works only on folks who know part of the story, know that there are sysops and administrators but don't know their limitations. As a sysop (provided you follow the rules) is does no good at all in a dispute. Definitely not something you want to pull out and wave around during an edit war you are involved in yourself.
Fred
This is a reasonable concern. I remember some time ago -- several months or a year -- when there was an edit war on a particular page and an administrator joined in with a message like this: "What's the trouble here? I am a sysop -- let's sort this out." Indeed, this was a very inappropriate use of the position. However, a number of other sysops pretty quickly chastised the person in question for projecting power in this way.
I think the only reasonable solution to this problem -- and my response to your concern -- is that sysops should act as "police" in one particular regard: we have a responsibility to police ourselves against this kind of abuse of power.
New contributors need to learn all sorts of stuff when they come to wikipedia -- from the ~~~ trick to the sometimes subtle NPOV policy. I think their learning what a sysop is and isn't is just one more of those things.
Steve
At 02:34 PM 5/23/2003 -0700, you wrote:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
Let's not get bogged down in semantics. This may be a case where an analogy to sysop is neither needed nor helpful. After all, judges under certain circumstances have a lot of power, and police often listen to different sides in a dispute, act as mediators, and are themselves policed. If we continue on this track we may end up having a very interesting and informative conversation about the differences between police, judges, and I would then add to the mix constables. But if we are having a discussion as sysop, I have three comments.
- I never sought out the position of sysop but
given that it implied a certain amount of trust by a segment of the community I didn't feel I could turn it down. When I first saw my new screen, with all the powers suddenly at my disposal, I really felt overwhelmed, almost dizzy. Of course my first act was to abuse the power -- although I was the only victim of that abuse. I have recently had an experience where I have been sorely tempted to put a block on a page and ban a user. Obviously I did not. But -- and I realize this may be of little interest to most of you -- so far I see being a sysop as a sort of zen exercise in accepting and renouncing power.
- But I have also deleted a couple of pages, and I
know some others have been very active in this. I wanted to ban one user with what I thought was good cause, and someone else did it the next day. Since virtually everyone in the community saw that person as a pest more than as a member of the community, I'd say -- if we really must have an analogy -- I'd compare sysop to house-cleaner.
- Whether sysop is a mop or a cop, either way I see
the role as being an agent of the community. If I understand the deal right now, there is virtually nothing a sysop can do that cannot be undone by another administrator; it seems to me that virtually all sysops, if they ever act, do so when they have a sense from the community.
Anyway, aside from my periodic zen moments, it does seem to me that the job is mostly about tidying up. It seems to me that anyone can do this on a limited basis (by editing -- just like we don't expect the maid or custodian to do all cleaning), and that the other tasks (e.g. cultivating NPOV) really are for the whole community, sysop or not.
Steve
Yeah, I guess that makes more sense than an anology. But I just realised that sysops have another, rarely used power. Sysops have power just from their name "sysop". If a sysop tells a bunch of non-sysops something, and they haven't heard the type of conversation on the mailing list (ie don't know that sysops aren't this exclusive band of 5 people who go around fixing the server and banning people), they'd probably listen to you more than a non-sysop. I don't think this power is actually used by anyone other than jimbo, though. --LittleDan
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
Steven L. Rubenstein Assistant 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: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
This is a reasonable concern. I remember some time ago -- several months or a year -- when there was an edit war on a particular page and an administrator joined in with a message like this: "What's the trouble here? I am a sysop -- let's sort this out." Indeed, this was a very inappropriate use of the position. However, a number of other sysops pretty quickly chastised the person in question for projecting power in this way.
I think the only reasonable solution to this problem -- and my response to your concern -- is that sysops should act as "police" in one particular regard: we have a responsibility to police ourselves against this kind of abuse of power.
New contributors need to learn all sorts of stuff when they come to wikipedia -- from the ~~~ trick to the sometimes subtle NPOV policy. I think their learning what a sysop is and isn't is just one more of those things.
Steven
I'm not saying intimidating non-sysops is a good thing, I just think it is a potential use of power and should not be ignored when discussing the power of sysops. I still don't think that sysops should be policemen. Something less violent. On cops (not to say that those events aren't staged), they take drug addicts, misrepresent the law to them ("if you tell me where the drugs are now, you'll get a lesser punishment" or something like that, when really (correct me if I'm wrong, alex) he didn't turn himself in and probably won't get any less punishment (there was no plea bargain or anything like that)), and arrest them, using excessive violence towards blacks in particular. We don't want to be like that. We're better than that. --LittleDan --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Anthère (but forced to be only "Anthere" on [[fr:]]) wrote in part:
Recently, many people were proposed to be sysops. They were mostly sold the "trust" display, rather than what syosp really is (a police force). The more sysops there are, the less trust will be granted to non sysops, imho.
Why do you think that sysops really are a police force? What do I, as a sysop on [[en:]], do that makes me a police officer? If you equate sysops with police, perhaps the real problem is that sysophood isn't being implemented correctly on [[fr:]].
--- Toby
Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote: Anth�re (but forced to be only "Anthere" on [[fr:]]) wrote in part:
Recently, many people were proposed to be sysops. They were mostly sold the "trust" display, rather than what syosp really is (a police force). The more sysops there are, the less trust will be granted to non sysops, imho.
Why do you think that sysops really are a police force? What do I, as a sysop on [[en:]], do that makes me a police officer? If you equate sysops with police, perhaps the real problem is that sysophood isn't being implemented correctly on [[fr:]].
--- Toby _______________________________________________
Hello
Both an answer to you and Daniel
There is nothing insulting against police in what I say. Police is necessary imho. There are all types of people in policemen. Mostly regular people, some very good people, and from time to time a couple of bad ones. Like in every profession. But amha the role of the police is double (that is only the way I see it) first police enforce the rules made by a group, and second they may have a role of mediator between people, trying to de-escalate violence display (this is a practice in poor suburbs in France, I have been living in such places at some point). Of course, mediation can be done by other people, but I believe it should be one of the tools the police should use to maintain peace. Not only punishment.
But police do not make the rules themselves. They, as citizens, participate to the rules being made, but no more than any other citizens. That is not their job to do so, but a privilege.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
All being behaviors that anybody could follow,
without
being necessary a sysop. Being gentle, caring,
loving
anod trusted, is not the prergative of a sysop.
--- Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote:
Recently, many people were proposed to be sysops. They were mostly sold the "trust" display, rather than what syosp really is (a police force). The more sysops there are, the less trust will be granted to non sysops, imho.
Which is why I don't care to be a sysop. It's more of a responsibility to police than anything (policing means responding to the cries of foul from the populace). What Jimbo said above holds true for me. No need to have a star-shape badge to be kind, and work in a spirit of community.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
--- Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
All being behaviors that anybody could follow,
without
being necessary a sysop. Being gentle, caring,
loving
anod trusted, is not the prergative of a sysop.
--- Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote:
Recently, many people were proposed to be sysops.
They
were mostly sold the "trust" display, rather than
what
syosp really is (a police force). The more sysops there are, the less trust will be granted to non sysops, imho.
Which is why I don't care to be a sysop. It's more of a responsibility to police than anything (policing means responding to the cries of foul from the populace). What Jimbo said above holds true for me. No need to have a star-shape badge to be kind, and work in a spirit of community.
Agreed. Btw, all what is written above your comment was written by me, not by Jimbo. Though, hopefully, he agrees with it.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com