"Tony Jacobs" wrote
We're actually developing a reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of heavy-handed thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly.
That rep has always been there, actually. There have always been admins who have treated vandal-chasing as central. The vandals have complained, the trolls are definitive loudmouths when it comes to their own grievances. I don't know how you would judge whether matters are getting worse or better, just from the hubbub.
Why doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect contributors? Why isn't that a high priority?
Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 6 Oct 2006, at 11:00, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Tony Jacobs" wrote
Why doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect contributors? Why isn't that a high priority?
Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
I've been meaning to bring a case for some time, but no one is ever uncivil to me!
Charles Matthews wrote:
From: charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Quitting Wikipedia and wanted you to know why. Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:00:02 +0100
"Tony Jacobs" wrote
We're actually developing a reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of
heavy-handed
thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly.
That rep has always been there, actually. There have always been admins who have treated vandal-chasing as central. The vandals have complained, the trolls are definitive loudmouths when it comes to their own grievances. I don't know how you would judge whether matters are getting worse or better, just from the hubbub.
I can only speak about my own impressions. It's possible that I've just been sticking my nose into different places lately, and picking up different smells. I'd still rather address how we can be more respectful and civil than argue over whether those who see us as disrespectful are worth listening to. Some of them are; that's enough for me. Why couldn't we have a reputation, even among trolls, as a place that won't tolerate nonsense, but will at least treat you with dignity while they show you the door? Wouldn't that be better? I know that some admins manage to deal with vandals and trolls without enraging them, and I'll agree it's tricky, but it's worthwhile. I know some trolls, too, and I know that being treated abusively makes them feel vindicated, and want to troll again. When they're treated with dignity, it sort of brings them up short, and takes the satisfaction out of it.
Why doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect contributors?
Why
isn't that a high priority?
Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
Not being much of an ArbCom lurker, I can't speak as to which cases you're brought, and in fairness, I /have/ seen ArbCom admonish admins regarding civility more than once. Still, it seems to me that the admin community in general does not have the impression that there's much sanction against incivility. I see admins shitting on users repeatedly, with very little visible discouragement. I try to speak out when I see it, and will continue to do so. I hope others will do the same; eventually the community's voice is even louder than ArbCom's. Nonetheless, I hope arbitrators will take seriously the idea that the way our admins treat users is a very important part of Wikipedia's public face, and that administrative arrogance is a liability to the project.
Tony Jacobs/GTBacchus
Tony Jacobs wrote:
Why couldn't we have a reputation, even among trolls, as a place that won't tolerate nonsense, but will at least treat you with dignity while they show you the door? Wouldn't that be better? I know that some admins manage to deal with vandals and trolls without enraging them, and I'll agree it's tricky, but it's worthwhile. I know some trolls, too, and I know that being treated abusively makes them feel vindicated, and want to troll again. When they're treated with dignity, it sort of brings them up short, and takes the satisfaction out of it.
There's a fine line here, and I don't want to sound like I'm arguing on the "there's no problem here" side of it, because I agree, hotheadedness and snideness are always wrong, and more civility is always nice.
The problem, of course, is that there's one breed of troll (arguably this is the very definition of a troll) that absolutely thrives on being talked to and treated *with* dignity. You engage these trolls in "civilized discourse" at your peril, because that's just what they want, and if you let them, they'll drag you down into a never-ending, mind-rotting, Alice-down-a- rabbit-hole "debate" that neither you nor the project has time for and that won't accomplish anything positive in the end. Furthermore, along the way they're liable to trick you into something that will make you look bad in the eyes of the peanut gallery.
As long as "treat you with dignity while they show you the door" can sometimes mean "treat you with dignity while they show you the door, IMMEDIATELY" (without passing GO, collecting $200, or spending minute one discussing the possibility), I have no argument with what you wrote.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Why doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect contributors? Why isn't that a high priority?
Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
I back Charles 100% on this.
I am on the ArbCom mailing list, and take an active part in it. I can assure everyone that the ArbCom takes a very dim view of admins behaving badly. The thing is, unless cases are brought, then the ArbCom doesn't see it.
It's pretty easy to say "thuggish admins going wild"... but what is needed are specific examples and cases.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of what has been raised in this thread is valid. As the community has grown, it has become harder to maintain the distinction between the kindness and love of Wikipedia and the hostility you find in most of the Internet.
But, I think we still do a pretty good job, even though as humans of course we could always do better.
--Jimbo
On 06/10/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It's pretty easy to say "thuggish admins going wild"... but what is needed are specific examples and cases.
And the fact that examples are usually lacking when this sort of complaint is made - and all too often turn out to be an admin being far too patient with someone not warranting it and eventually blowing their top - means such complaints are generally taken no notice of.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of what has been raised in this thread is valid. As the community has grown, it has become harder to maintain the distinction between the kindness and love of Wikipedia and the hostility you find in most of the Internet.
Hmm.
- d.
I've given my responses as to why arbcom doesn't bother with these cases in another response, Jimbo.
But here's the short side: you've put up so many roadblocks to starting an arbcom case, and there are so many items an abusive administrator can throw in the way of one, that there is no chance for any of these cases to possibly see arbcom attention.
Our dispute resolution system is a joke.
On 10/6/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Why doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect contributors? Why isn't that a high priority?
Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
I back Charles 100% on this.
I am on the ArbCom mailing list, and take an active part in it. I can assure everyone that the ArbCom takes a very dim view of admins behaving badly. The thing is, unless cases are brought, then the ArbCom doesn't see it.
It's pretty easy to say "thuggish admins going wild"... but what is needed are specific examples and cases.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of what has been raised in this thread is valid. As the community has grown, it has become harder to maintain the distinction between the kindness and love of Wikipedia and the hostility you find in most of the Internet.
But, I think we still do a pretty good job, even though as humans of course we could always do better.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Parker Peters wrote:
I've given my responses as to why arbcom doesn't bother with these cases in another response, Jimbo.
But here's the short side: you've put up so many roadblocks to starting an arbcom case, and there are so many items an abusive administrator can throw in the way of one, that there is no chance for any of these cases to possibly see arbcom attention.
What are the blocks you see, and how should we remove them?
Clearly, there is no intention to make it difficult for anyone to start an arbcom case.
--Jimbo
On 10/6/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Clearly, there is no intention to make it difficult for anyone to start an arbcom case.
--Jimbo
That isn't quite the case. Generaly we try to make sure that arbcom is the last step rather than the first.
On 6 Oct 2006, at 13:22, Jimmy Wales wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind that some of what has been raised in this thread is valid. As the community has grown, it has become harder to maintain the distinction between the kindness and love of Wikipedia and the hostility you find in most of the Internet.
But, I think we still do a pretty good job, even though as humans of course we could always do better.
There's a lot of kindness and cooperation too.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Why doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect contributors? Why isn't that a high priority?
Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
I back Charles 100% on this.
I am on the ArbCom mailing list, and take an active part in it. I can assure everyone that the ArbCom takes a very dim view of admins behaving badly. The thing is, unless cases are brought, then the ArbCom doesn't see it.
True enough, but if the person being abused is a genuine newbie you can't expect him to make immediate sense of the process that would bring his case to ArbCom.
It's pretty easy to say "thuggish admins going wild"... but what is needed are specific examples and cases.
Yes, but not on this thread.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of what has been raised in this thread is valid. As the community has grown, it has become harder to maintain the distinction between the kindness and love of Wikipedia and the hostility you find in most of the Internet.
Does the fact that I still believe in those principles mean that I have been here too long?
Ec