I'd like to respond to the guidelines that Mr. Wales laid out. I am certain that I acted according to those guidelines.
"Q1. Have I been involved in the edit war?
A1. Yes --> don't protect the page, and it's probably best to let the other person win for today to end the edit war, and if the remaining participants keep having an edit war, ask another uninvolved sysop to protect the page."
*I had never edited the page prior to this edit war and I have never added content to the page. The article's history demonstrates that I only restored versions, which were to be protected, that did not contain the content responsible for the edit wars. Personally, I was the ideal person to stabilize the page, being of no faith and never having participated in topics pertaining to the sex-abuse scandal. I have not contributed a word to the article.
A2. No --> protect the page, proceed to Q2.
Q2. Is there some edit that needs to be urgently made to fix the page, or is there some very cautious thing I could do that's likely to help for now?
*Yes, there was an urgent need to edit the page. Due to Nostrum's repeated refusals to cooperate with the other contributors, I was forced to restore the latest version not to include the unacceptable content.
A2. Cautiously make the edit.
*And that's what I did until Eric overreacted, probably unaware at the time that I was not involved in the edit war, have never expressed any strong feelings about the subject, had been asked to protect the page, have read requests to protect the page, waited cautiously while the article was stable before protecting the page, warning all involved contributors that I'd be willing to protect the page, and finally unaware of the unacceptable quality of the text.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Abe-
*I had never edited the page prior to this edit war and I have never added content to the page. The article's history demonstrates that I only restored versions, which were to be protected, that did not contain the content responsible for the edit wars. Personally, I was the ideal person to stabilize the page, being of no faith and never having participated in topics pertaining to the sex-abuse scandal.
The problem is that you expressed a very strong POV before your actions. You called the page contents gibberish, garbage, grotesque, rubbish, trash. That may all be true, but it places you in a position where you can no longer be an independent arbitrator. And that's what sysops who protect pages in edit wars should be. I have not asked you for an apology -- I have just asked you to accept and follow these rules: to only protect pages in matters where you have not taken sides. Instead you ignored my request and re-protected the page after I unprotected it. This, again, goes against a spirit of mutual cooperation among sysops and against the spirit of our policies as well.
I think you know that you overstepped the limits a little. I am willing to do my part and say that the protected page guidelines could be clearer on the point of when it is OK to protect and when it isn't. Can we then both agree to follow the guidelines in the spirit outlined above?
Regards,
Erik
I can accept what Abe is saying here, no problem. Someone please restore Abe's sysop status.
We've gotten into an area here that hasn't much been explored, and so I don't want this to turn into a blame Abe/blame Erik kind of thing in any way. But we probably do need to clarify one aspect of policy.
When should developers act to revoke sysop status? I would say "Almost never" although I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments.
I don't say "never" because we can always keep in mind that there could be a real emergency. We're trying to be very liberal with sysop powers to keep them from being 'elite enforcers'. We're *not* being liberal with developer powers, because the whole reason we have the separation is technical and there are dangers involved.
But since we're being very liberal with sysop powers, there's a chance that we'll inadvertantly approve someone who turns out to be a real problem, a nutcase. If a sysop went bonkers and started deleting huge numbers of pages, banning random ips, and the like, and if it was the weekend or at night when I might not be around to assist, then it would be appropriate for a developer to step in to protect the site.
But such emergencies are going to be extremely rare, I think. After all, sysops are people we know, people who have acted normally for a period of time, and people like that don't normally just go nuts.
However, when there is no emergency, just an abuse of sysop powers, then a developer should not step in directly and make a decision, even temporarily. In this case, there was minimal harm done even if Abe was wrong to protect the page (and it's unclear now that he was wrong, as his explanation is sensible enough to at least raise a reasonable doubt). A page would have been protected overnight until the issue was raised with me, and Erik and Abe and the rest of us could have had a clarifying discussion about when pages should be protected or not.
My point here is not to render a verdict on whether Abe should or should not have protected the page. My point is also not to render a verdict on whether Erik should or should not have removed the sysop status. My point here is rather to say that _in the future_, it would be best if developers only act to remove sysop status in a real emergency.
What we want to guard against is an elite cabal with superior powers acting to defend the site. Well, I guess I'm protecting my own elite position of 1.
But things like bans and removal of sysop powers are hurtful and painful to the community, and I think the best way to handle them for now is for me to don my best "neutral Jimbo" hat and for me to act very slowly and carefully and under intense community supervision and feedback.
Developer is a technical position, not a policy position.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
When should developers act to revoke sysop status? I would say "Almost never" although I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments.
I don't really care if I have less work, but my personal opinion on the matter is that protecting pages is one of the most radical things to do in a wiki. Nobody who does not belong to the trusted group of sysops will be able to make additions to the page during the period of protections, and this enforces a class distinction that I am not very comfortable with. I think it should be avoided.
As I have also pointed out, I am not comfortable with the frequent antagonism towards newbies who make mistakes, and this is even more problematic if it is combined with sysop actions. In 172's case, the policy could be interpreted both ways -- that you are not really involved in an edit war if you just express a strong opinion on the talk page before protecting the page, or that you are in fact involved by doing so. My interpretation is a matter of record, and I have now edited the policy to favor my interpretation -- this is of course open to discussion.
You endorsed the previous similar actions in the case of User:Kils, so it seemed logical to enforce the policy as I interpreted it. If, however, you do not want me to do this and want to handle all complaints about sysop status yourself except in cases of major vandalism that requires immediate action, then I will gladly forward such complaints to you. I'm sure the 1 person bottleneck will bite us in the ass sooner or later, though.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't really care if I have less work, but my personal opinion on the matter is that protecting pages is one of the most radical things to do in a wiki. Nobody who does not belong to the trusted group of sysops will be able to make additions to the page during the period of protections, and this enforces a class distinction that I am not very comfortable with. I think it should be avoided.
I would agree with you completely that page protection should be avoided whenever possible. A better choice is for people to let the other person win for a day or two, and come back and change it when things have calmed down. A still better choice is to try really hard to accomodate their point of view while still fixing the problem (this can be hard to do, of course, but it's the essence of the wiki process).
And I would also tend to agree with you that making comments on the talk page is best avoided, or at least highly limited with respect to the debate. However, I can see some benefit in a semi-disinterested sysop coming in and making a stab at making peace on the talk page, and then when that fails, taking another step. It seems unwise to have a hard-and-fast rule here. Judgment will have to be used, and analysis after the fact can help to guide us to a better path in the future.
You endorsed the previous similar actions in the case of User:Kils, so it seemed logical to enforce the policy as I interpreted it. If, however, you do not want me to do this and want to handle all complaints about sysop status yourself except in cases of major vandalism that requires immediate action, then I will gladly forward such complaints to you. I'm sure the 1 person bottleneck will bite us in the ass sooner or later, though.
Tragically, I don't remember the exact circumstances of User:Kils, even though it was fairly recent. :-(
But, yeah, I do acknowledge the bottleneck problem.
There's something of an irony or paradox here. Should developers be an elite cabal acting to prevent the formation of an elite cabal of sysops? :-) Probably that's overstating it, but it does sum up the essence of the policy tensions here, I think.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
Tragically, I don't remember the exact circumstances of User:Kils, even though it was fairly recent. :-(
Well, Kils deleted his own user talk page and did some strange stuff regarding pages which he considered inappropriate. But there was no immediate threat in that case either -- it could have gone through the Jimbottleneck as well ;-).
There's something of an irony or paradox here. Should developers be an elite cabal acting to prevent the formation of an elite cabal of sysops? :-) Probably that's overstating it, but it does sum up the essence of the policy tensions here, I think.
Anytime I try to get Brion interested in joining my cabal, he goes on vacation. And the people I've hired to dispose of a certain benevolent dictator say they won't accept my WikiMoney. Hopefully the cabal will be in place soon, so we can hold the world hostage by refusing to release access to the database until we get .. 1 MILLION DOLLARS.
Seriously, though, it's always the same question: who watches the watchers? I think all in all our process is reasonably open, and even if you yourself abused your privileges to an unreasonable degree, there would always be the possibility of forking. We subject each other to constant supervision, and if I compare Wikipedia with other projects like Slashdot, H2G2 and Everything2, I think we're a long way from falling victim to this kind of elitism.
Regards,
Erik