Alex R. wrote: 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

Anthère (but forced to be only Anthere on [[fr:]]) wrote: 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

--- Anthere <anthere6(a)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). 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

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: 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

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

--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste(a)ohiou.edu> wrote: 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

Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> wrote: Anth�re (but forced to be only "Anthere" on [[fr:]]) wrote in part: 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.

--- Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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