From: "Alec Conroy" alecmconroy@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dangerous factionalism (Was: Re: SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks)
Again, the point here isn't justice, but to figure out how we can best write an encyclopedia.
Let us assume, as you do, that there are clear innocents here. Even still, I think it's entirely plausible that a person could be sufficiently victimized that they're no longer capable of performing the role of admin.
As the number of conflicts a user is involved in increases, it errodes their ability to serve as an uninvolved neutral third party able to resolve inter-user conflict. It's conceivable to me, in the abstract, a user could, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a position where it was probably best they no longer act as an admin.
One way of looking at it would be that, as factions form, it might be hard for a controversial user to reasonably be viewed as "uninvolved" in practically any inter-user. Another argument could be that a user has become a lightning rod for a deeper dispute-- much like the guilt or innocents of OJ Simpson became, in some circles, a focal point for race relations in the US. Or maybe it's as simple as recognizing the status quo isn't working out for the project-- akin to the end of a romantic relationship, recognizing "This just isn't working out... I'm sorry, but, the precise nature of our relationship has to change, but I hope we can still be friends".
(But admittedly, this whole line of thinking is predicated upon the assumption that adminship truly is not a trophy, and that therefore, desysopping is truly not automatically a demerit, a punishment, or a mark of guilt. )
Alec
Wouldn't it be just a bit easier to have admins go on wikibreak instead? It'd have the same effect (assuming either works) and without the stigma of desysopping. Or else suggest that admins voluntarily stop doing admin things for a while. If necessary, a wikibreak could be enforced (there's a script to add to your monobook.js file, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer]], which could do it) or something drastic like that, and it'd still be better (I think).
[[User:Lifebaka]]
On 7/23/08, Jonathan Hughes lifebaka@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be just a bit easier to have admins go on wikibreak instead? It'd have the same effect (assuming either works) and without the stigma of desysopping. Or else suggest that admins voluntarily stop doing admin things for a while.
Absolutlely-- those are all options an arbcom could draw upon too in trying to mend the situation.
Another middle-ground that I don't think I've seen before-- eliciting a promise from admins to stop using their tools until being "re-confirmed" by a RFA or Arbcom-- BUT, keeping the bit in place, letting the user still be an admin, and not have the stigma.
And I should say, despite this thread, I'm not actually lobbying for desysopping or anything--- I'm just trying to find options in the middle ground. middle-ground. Arbcom seems to be deadlocked or otherwise stuck, George Herbert makes some excellent points, and it seems reasonable to brainstorm solutions that lie between "Person is commended" and "Person is hereby desysopped, with extreme prejudice. "
Maybe if assigning fault isn't something people can find consensus on, perhaps consensus could be reached through just focusing on how to limit the potential for the conflict to continue unabated or for it to expand.
Tricky situations abound. Perhaps the solution is to admit we don't know if "you were bad" or not-- we can't agree on that. But we do know "the project might be better off if you let the other 1500 admins handling conflicts". Just a for example.
It's also possible, though I might say not likely, that the situation could be resolved by just ignoring the factionalism problem GH discusses but dealing very firmly with the more black-and-white breaches of policy. If everyone involved were on a very tight civility leash, for example, maybe flames would die down through a ripple-effect the resolves the community issues.
I dunno. Very complicated, very tricky. At this point, almost any solution is worth considering. See if Jimmy Carter is available to come mediate between SlimVirgin and Cla68? All disputes to be settled by a Mesoamerican Ballgame competition? Personally, I think our best hope is for the foundation to buy a giant searchlight that says "New York Brad" on it, shine it up into the clouds as a signal, and hope that NYB, despite his secret identity having been exposed, will to return to arbcom and save us all. (ala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_signal and the general consensus that NYB is, in fact, a supehero :) )
Alec
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Alec Conroy wrote:
Another middle-ground that I don't think I've seen before-- eliciting a promise from admins to stop using their tools until being "re-confirmed" by a RFA or Arbcom-- BUT, keeping the bit in place, letting the user still be an admin, and not have the stigma.
This still leaves a harassed admin with a Hobson's choice: don't complain about the harassment, or promise to stop using admin tools.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Alec Conroy wrote:
Another middle-ground that I don't think I've seen before-- eliciting a promise from admins to stop using their tools until being "re-confirmed" by a RFA or Arbcom-- BUT, keeping the bit in place, letting the user still be an admin, and not have the stigma.
This still leaves a harassed admin with a Hobson's choice: don't complain about the harassment, or promise to stop using admin tools.
This has gone far beyond a normal harrassed admin problem.