From: Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@gmail.com Reply-To: Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@gmail.com,English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Zero0000 has blocked Lance6Wins....apparentlycontray to Blocking policy Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:44:50 +0100
Anyone can make a harmless mistake, and Zero has clearly blown this issue out of all proportians. Is it really worth making all this fuss over something as silly as 'where did this quote come from'
I think there is a more important issue here, and that it is not just Zero who has "blown the issue out of all proportions." The tolerance for editors who willfully damage Wikipedia is astounding; known repeat offenders are agonized over, sometimes for weeks at a time, before action is taken, and even then actions are watered down in the hopes that one day, perhaps, with the right tutoring, the editor might make some valuable edit or contribution. Even people who have been permanently banned for outrageous behaviour are allowed back in on special "parole" conditions in the hopes that enough Wikilove and supervision will turn them into productive citizens. The RfC, mediation, and Abitration processes work so slowly and intermittently that many admins describe them as broken and essentially useless (see, for example, [[User:Ambi/Thoughts_on_Dispute_Resolution]] . And yet, when an admin who has made extremely valuable contributions to the project appears to step over the line in a fairly mild way, the immediate response *from the top* is that this person should be de-sysopped.
Now it's true no action has yet been taken, and given the glacial pace of the various abuse "remedies" on Wikipedia, it's likely none ever will be taken. And I understand and support the need for holding an admin to a significantly higher standard than a regular editor. However, I still see a big imbalance here between the way valuable contributors are treated and how known trolls are coddled. A number of extremely knowledgeable editors have privately (and even publicly) stated that they would no longer edit articles *in their areas of expertise* because the abuse and harassment they receive from POV warriors and ad hominem abusers is so great that it is simply not worth it for them to bother, particularly as there is no remedy for this problem - or rather, there are remedies, but Wikpedia cannot or will not use them.
I admit that some of the frustration I'm expressing here is based on two solid weeks of daily personal attacks on me by 3 Wikipedia editors, and in particular my feeling that there is little, if any, point in attempting to use the various Wikipedia remedies to try to fix this situation. And perhaps it is character building for me to simply ignore the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" rather than "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them," particularly when I think the arms in question are ineffective. Nevertheless, the underlying question is general and remains; how many of Wikipedia's most valuable resources will be forced to take lengthy or permanent self-imposed Wikibreaks as a result of this, before the issue is not only taken seriously, but actually addressed?
Jay.
_________________________________________________________________ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI... Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
And yet, when an admin who has made extremely valuable contributions to the project appears to step over the line in a fairly mild way, the immediate response *from the top* is that this person should be de-sysopped.
<snip>
from POV warriors and ad hominem abusers is so great Jay.
Jay,
Admin privileges are a trust. they require a high level of maturity in order to refrain from using those privileges to enforce one's own view upon a section/article in Wikipedia. Abusing that trust, even once, indicates a lapse in that maturity, a failure to place the policies of Wikipedia above ones own desires.
Zero0000 is the worst ad hominem abusers that I have come into contact with at Wikipedia. Virtually everyon e else is willing to discuss an edit to one extent or another. Zero0000 quickly went to "go away", "ban him", "i will ban you" as his only communication with Lance6Wins. He maintained that position over an extended period of time. That is unacceptable behavior in any admin.
Lance6Wins
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
The tolerance for editors who willfully damage Wikipedia is astounding; known repeat offenders are agonized over, sometimes for weeks at a time, before action is taken, and even then actions are watered down in the hopes that one day, perhaps, with the right tutoring, the editor might make some valuable edit or contribution.
I agree with this completely.
The key, though, is that the solution to this problem has to be undertaken in a way that is respectful of due process. My deep conviction that sysops who violate the rules must lose their sysop privileges should not be mistaken for a toleration for trolls and vandals. The amount of time that we allow *bad people* to waste for *good people* is staggering to me.
--Jimbo