I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
1. Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion. 1. a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be shortened or lifted. 1. b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages. 2. Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.) Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months before starting the process to regain admin status.
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
- Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion.
- a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be
shortened or lifted.
- b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
- Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.) Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months before starting the process to regain admin status.
This seems unnecessarily harsh and byzantine.
I've never been a fan of mandatory sentences in the real world -- and we're not talking about real crimes here. Not trying to minimize the bad feelings that can be engendered, but people should be allowed to be human.
Why not just use [[Don't be a dick]] and [[Assume good faith]] to guide decision making?
I think apologies work nicely. Most people cool off in a lot less than three months.
This seems unnecessarily harsh and byzantine.
Did Jimbo desysopping five admins last night seem unnecessarily harsh? Wheel warring is a pretty big problem, firstly. Secondly, admins need to be held to a higher standard.
Just a tad harsh and overreactionary?
Just one reverse warrants a desysopping?! Jeez...
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
- Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion.
- a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be
shortened or lifted.
- b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
- Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.) Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months before starting the process to regain admin status.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
The 1RR on a protected article seems a bit arbitary and strict, but I think the rest of the ideas are sound. Admins need to be held accountable for their actions, and they need to present a clean face to the rest of the world. If people look at the admin discussion and find childish bickering, how do you think they'll feel about the site as a whole?
On 2/6/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Just a tad harsh and overreactionary?
Just one reverse warrants a desysopping?! Jeez...
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
- Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion.
- a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be
shortened or lifted.
- b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
- Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.) Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months before starting the process to regain admin status.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On the other hand, sometimes it's better (only the first time!) to revert a block and place a note on the AN with something like "if you still feel the block is justified, I won't revert again without more discussion"
First time punishment is too harsh
On 2/6/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
The 1RR on a protected article seems a bit arbitary and strict, but I think the rest of the ideas are sound. Admins need to be held accountable for their actions, and they need to present a clean face to the rest of the world. If people look at the admin discussion and find childish bickering, how do you think they'll feel about the site as a whole?
On 2/6/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
Just a tad harsh and overreactionary?
Just one reverse warrants a desysopping?! Jeez...
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
- Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion.
- a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be
shortened or lifted.
- b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
- Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.) Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months before starting the process to regain admin status.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
On the other hand, sometimes it's better (only the first time!) to revert a block and place a note on the AN with something like "if you still feel the block is justified, I won't revert again without more discussion"
First time punishment is too harsh
I agree, and have written a new proposal with this in mind:
Ban on wheel warring (1RR edition by Philwelch)
1. In the spirit of the 1RR, no sysop action may be reverted more than once in any given dispute. In practice, this means that a reviewing admin may unblock a user previously blocked by another admin or unprotect a page previously protected by another admin (for example), but the original admin or second reviewing admin may choose to reblock or reprotect. At this point, no further reversion is allowed—even by a previously uninvolved party. 1. a. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages. 2. Further reversion is only allowed once the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant further reversion. 3. Any administrator who violates this policy shall be desysopped immediately. The desysopped admin may refer to Requests for adminship, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors for review and appeal.
Philip Welch wrote:
- In the spirit of the 1RR, no sysop action may be reverted more
than once in any given dispute. In practice, this means that a reviewing admin may unblock a user previously blocked by another admin or unprotect a page previously protected by another admin (for example), but the original admin or second reviewing admin may choose to reblock or reprotect. At this point, no further reversion is allowed—even by a previously uninvolved party.
- a. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
- Further reversion is only allowed once the parties involved have
reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant further reversion. 3. Any administrator who violates this policy shall be desysopped immediately. The desysopped admin may refer to Requests for adminship, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors for review and appeal.
I presume that this rulebound nonsense was intended as a joke.
Ec
I presume that this rulebound nonsense was intended as a joke.
I'm glad we're capable of serious conversation about important subjects here. Way to improve the level of discourse.
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
- Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion.
- a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be
shortened or lifted.
- b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
- Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.) Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months before starting the process to regain admin status.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
The only objection I have to this is that sometimes, an admin makes a mistake (say, for example, a 3RR block when in reality, only three reverts and a legitimate edit was made). I've had editors contact me wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, but find they can't because of a wrong blocking. In these cases, I usually go ahead and unblock them, and then leave a nice message on the blocking admin's talk page. Any other delay due to communication between admins I think is unfair to the blocked editors.
This is an international project, and we all can't expect to be online at the same time, what with time zones, sleeping, eating, school, work and such. I don't think I'll be able to say to that blocked editor "Sorry, I can't unblock you for fear of losing sysop status for at least three months. You'll have to wait while Admin XYZ, who is currently sleeping in Asia/America/Europe to check his email/talk page and unblock you."
But otherwise, a strict wheel-warring policy is needed. Admins aren't above the law. Our disciplinary procedures should at least attempt to show this.
We are now at the age where adminship is truly a "big deal". -- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche bratsche1@gmail.com "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
On 2/6/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
- Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion.
- a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be
shortened or lifted.
- b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
- Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.) Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months before starting the process to regain admin status.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
The only objection I have to this is that sometimes, an admin makes a mistake (say, for example, a 3RR block when in reality, only three reverts and a legitimate edit was made). I've had editors contact me wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, but find they can't because of a wrong blocking. In these cases, I usually go ahead and unblock them, and then leave a nice message on the blocking admin's talk page. Any other delay due to communication between admins I think is unfair to the blocked editors.
This is an international project, and we all can't expect to be online at the same time, what with time zones, sleeping, eating, school, work and such. I don't think I'll be able to say to that blocked editor "Sorry, I can't unblock you for fear of losing sysop status for at least three months. You'll have to wait while Admin XYZ, who is currently sleeping in Asia/America/Europe to check his email/talk page and unblock you."
But otherwise, a strict wheel-warring policy is needed. Admins aren't above the law. Our disciplinary procedures should at least attempt to show this.
We are now at the age where adminship is truly a "big deal".
It really doesn't have to be.
On 2/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/6/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
- Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion.
- a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be
shortened or lifted.
- b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
- Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.) Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately without further review. 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months before starting the process to regain admin status.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
The only objection I have to this is that sometimes, an admin makes a mistake (say, for example, a 3RR block when in reality, only three
reverts
and a legitimate edit was made). I've had editors contact me wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, but find they can't because of a wrong
blocking. In
these cases, I usually go ahead and unblock them, and then leave a nice message on the blocking admin's talk page. Any other delay due to communication between admins I think is unfair to the blocked editors.
This is an international project, and we all can't expect to be online
at
the same time, what with time zones, sleeping, eating, school, work and such. I don't think I'll be able to say to that blocked editor "Sorry, I can't unblock you for fear of losing sysop status for at least three
months.
You'll have to wait while Admin XYZ, who is currently sleeping in Asia/America/Europe to check his email/talk page and unblock you."
But otherwise, a strict wheel-warring policy is needed. Admins aren't
above
the law. Our disciplinary procedures should at least attempt to show
this.
We are now at the age where adminship is truly a "big deal".
It really doesn't have to be.
Yes, it does. There are far too many people coming to this site, we have far too much visibility, to take a lassiez faire attitude towards keeping the site operational.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
The only objection I have to this is that sometimes, an admin makes a mistake (say, for example, a 3RR block when in reality, only three reverts and a legitimate edit was made). I've had editors contact me wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, but find they can't because of a wrong blocking. In these cases, I usually go ahead and unblock them, and then leave a nice message on the blocking admin's talk page. Any other delay due to communication between admins I think is unfair to the blocked editors.
Given the way most people reply on listservs, I can't blame you for not seeing this yet, but I've already addressed this concern in my 1RR edition :)
This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and rethinking my role here. If El C and Carbonite leave we have lost a lot more than can be counted in them just as individuals. El C, for one, made this place fun, and if you aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
Wheel warring is something that sensible people should not indulge in. On the other hand, the ability of admins to undo each others' blocks is one of the things that make adminship "no big deal". Piles of regulations, and people who live to interpret regulations and find loopholes in regulations do the project no good. Rather than wheel-warring, clamp down on inappropriate blocks. Blocking vandals is an easy decision. Blocking people who say "Get the fuck away from me you fucking psycho" are easy to block. But the onus needs to be on the first person doing the blocking, that they get it right, not on the other people involved. We need to look at people's actions, look at the number of blocks you had overturned and the number of blocks you overturned...and if you have more than three blocks overturned in a fortnight, then someone needs to take you aside an talk to you. If you regularly overturn blocks, then someone needs to talk to you. We are developing a culture where wheel warring is become acceptable. We need to change to culture, not by creating new regulations, but by socialising people away from it.
Page deletion and recreation is another issue. We cannot fetishise process, and *fD needs serious reform. We need to organise a Wikiproject to reform *fD. Get people to throw in ideas, and get other people to repackage them. Do not impose a solution, and make sure that we come up with something so devoid of ego that no one feels ownership of the idea. The standard "propose-and-argue" method has too much ego in it - you fight to defend "your view". We need some people to generate ideas and write them up, other people to try to put together, and others to harmonise the final ideas. Be editors, not creators. Or some crap like that.
Despite my efforts to stay on the fringes, I find this whole thing sapping my energy. I don't know what it does to people at the centre of it all. Give it a rest, try to preserve your sanity - and try to think about collaborative solutions.
Ian
On 2/7/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and rethinking my role here. If El C and Carbonite leave we have lost a lot more than can be counted in them just as individuals. El C, for one, made this place fun, and if you aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
Wheel warring is something that sensible people should not indulge in. On the other hand, the ability of admins to undo each others' blocks is one of the things that make adminship "no big deal". Piles of regulations, and people who live to interpret regulations and find loopholes in regulations do the project no good. Rather than wheel-warring, clamp down on inappropriate blocks. Blocking vandals is an easy decision. Blocking people who say "Get the fuck away from me you fucking psycho" are easy to block. But the onus needs to be on the first person doing the blocking, that they get it right, not on the other people involved. We need to look at people's actions, look at the number of blocks you had overturned and the number of blocks you overturned...and if you have more than three blocks overturned in a fortnight, then someone needs to take you aside an talk to you. If you regularly overturn blocks, then someone needs to talk to you. We are developing a culture where wheel warring is become acceptable. We need to change to culture, not by creating new regulations, but by socialising people away from it.
Page deletion and recreation is another issue. We cannot fetishise process, and *fD needs serious reform. We need to organise a Wikiproject to reform *fD. Get people to throw in ideas, and get other people to repackage them. Do not impose a solution, and make sure that we come up with something so devoid of ego that no one feels ownership of the idea. The standard "propose-and-argue" method has too much ego in it - you fight to defend "your view". We need some people to generate ideas and write them up, other people to try to put together, and others to harmonise the final ideas. Be editors, not creators. Or some crap like that.
Despite my efforts to stay on the fringes, I find this whole thing sapping my energy. I don't know what it does to people at the centre of it all. Give it a rest, try to preserve your sanity - and try to think about collaborative solutions.
You are exactly right, but history tells us that process-oriented, rules-as-ritual, paranoid, vindictive bureaucracies generally win in the long run. It's an incremental process, but each step is based in the logic that security (or rather, the illusion of security) is more important than individual freedoms, that there are enough bad people and precious things in the world to ruin the happiness of the good.
I'm glad that there's still some culture of questioning rules and trusting people.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/7/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and rethinking my role here. If El C and Carbonite leave we have lost a lot more than can be counted in them just as individuals. El C, for one, made this place fun, and if you aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
Wheel warring is something that sensible people should not indulge in. On the other hand, the ability of admins to undo each others' blocks is one of the things that make adminship "no big deal". Piles of regulations, and people who live to interpret regulations and find loopholes in regulations do the project no good. Rather than wheel-warring, clamp down on inappropriate blocks. Blocking vandals is an easy decision. Blocking people who say "Get the fuck away from me you fucking psycho" are easy to block. But the onus needs to be on the first person doing the blocking, that they get it right, not on the other people involved. We need to look at people's actions, look at the number of blocks you had overturned and the number of blocks you overturned...and if you have more than three blocks overturned in a fortnight, then someone needs to take you aside an talk to you. If you regularly overturn blocks, then someone needs to talk to you. We are developing a culture where wheel warring is become acceptable. We need to change to culture, not by creating new regulations, but by socialising people away from it.
Page deletion and recreation is another issue. We cannot fetishise process, and *fD needs serious reform. We need to organise a Wikiproject to reform *fD. Get people to throw in ideas, and get other people to repackage them. Do not impose a solution, and make sure that we come up with something so devoid of ego that no one feels ownership of the idea. The standard "propose-and-argue" method has too much ego in it - you fight to defend "your view". We need some people to generate ideas and write them up, other people to try to put together, and others to harmonise the final ideas. Be editors, not creators. Or some crap like that.
Despite my efforts to stay on the fringes, I find this whole thing sapping my energy. I don't know what it does to people at the centre of it all. Give it a rest, try to preserve your sanity - and try to think about collaborative solutions.
You are exactly right, but history tells us that process-oriented, rules-as-ritual, paranoid, vindictive bureaucracies generally win in the long run. It's an incremental process, but each step is based in the logic that security (or rather, the illusion of security) is more important than individual freedoms, that there are enough bad people and precious things in the world to ruin the happiness of the good.
I'm glad that there's still some culture of questioning rules and trusting people.
Sadly, I agree. Real original progress comes from people who are willing to take risks, not from those obsessed with protecting what they believe they already have. My impression is that those who like this web of rules are not really interested in solutions. They can't say outright that they don't want the project infected with new ideas, but they have other techniques for intimidating the newcomer who may really have some good ideas. The newcomer doesn't yet know the players; they have no basis for distinguishing between the new sysop trying to exercise his new powers and the more mellow experienced user. He has no idea who can be safely offended.
I believe that sysops should be held to a higher standard, beginning with the ones who are too quick to impose blocks. There should be no presumption that the person who imposed a block is prima facie more correct than the one who undoes that same block. A review of an unblock should include a review of the block, and if the original block is determined to be improper, the blocking sysop should be subject to blocking for the same period of time that he sought to impose on the user. If he uses the block fairly and competently he will have nothing to worry about.
I don't always agree with Cunc and Ed Poor, and perhaps they can sometimes be annoying or outrageous. I have learned to live here with others whose opinions on a broad but complex variety of issues are diametrically opposed to mine. I don't think that I have been wrong to believe that this has been critical to a properly functioning wiki. I have never needed a tome of rules to teach me that.
I am more willing to pay attention to people like Cunc who speak from conscience than to those who have nothing better to offer than more rules. I won't always agree with him, but at least I'll listen ... and listening is the first step to any solution.
Ec
I don't think we require strict rules Phil Welch suggested them. It's easy to make a mistake by overlooking a certain discussion or some entry in a log, which could easily make the number of admins dwindle and cause a lot of people to leave the project.
I think we should encourage people to discuss more. If something turns into a wheelwar, all the parties involved should receive a warning not to continue. This would leave good faith unblocking after user requests open without any fears for the involved admin.
Wheelwars usually start when the overturning of a decision is overturned. At such a time any further changes need to be discussed.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I don't think we require strict rules Phil Welch suggested them. It's easy to make a mistake by overlooking a certain discussion or some entry in a log, which could easily make the number of admins dwindle and cause a lot of people to leave the project.
I think we should encourage people to discuss more. If something turns into a wheelwar, all the parties involved should receive a warning not to continue. This would leave good faith unblocking after user requests open without any fears for the involved admin.
Wheelwars usually start when the overturning of a decision is overturned. At such a time any further changes need to be discussed.
Mgm
I agree. We already know wheel warring is bad. Everyone does (except some rogue admins). If the action being (un)done is so bad that it destroys the encyclopedia, don't bother wheel warring when so many people disagree -- just take a wikibreak, fork and/or leave. If other people are in the wrong, an examination of the facts should bear this out.
Unfortunately, cool heads rarely prevail in wheel/edit wars. This is why I proposed on [[Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats]] that 'crats be given the authority to desysop/block in a wheel/edit war to defuse it and get discussion flowing again. This doesn't have to indicate that the warriors' initial actions were wrong -- all it indicates is that their warring was wrong. No need for legalism when the existing rules are already being disobeyed. Just give the rules teeth -- I can think of so many loopholes in Phil Welch's proposal that it just wouldn't be workable -- it'd basically make mistakes close to unpardonable.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
This is why I proposed on [[Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats]] that 'crats be given the authority to desysop/block in a wheel/edit war to defuse it and get discussion flowing again.
Sounds good - I like the idea of "desysop first, ask questions later". Asking questions can and should include reinstating admin powers in most cases. Preferably after the admin in question has agreed that they were in the wrong.
Steve
On 2/7/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I don't think we require strict rules Phil Welch suggested them. It's easy to make a mistake by overlooking a certain discussion or some entry in a log, which could easily make the number of admins dwindle and cause a lot of people to leave the project.
I think we should encourage people to discuss more. If something turns into a wheelwar, all the parties involved should receive a warning not to continue. This would leave good faith unblocking after user requests open without any fears for the involved admin.
Wheelwars usually start when the overturning of a decision is overturned. At such a time any further changes need to be discussed.
Mgm
I agree. We already know wheel warring is bad. Everyone does (except some rogue admins). If the action being (un)done is so bad that it destroys the encyclopedia, don't bother wheel warring when so many people disagree -- just take a wikibreak, fork and/or leave. If other people are in the wrong, an examination of the facts should bear this out.
Unfortunately, cool heads rarely prevail in wheel/edit wars.
Normaly once the intial peak of intensity has died down things work out all right.
-- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of John Lee
Unfortunately, cool heads rarely prevail in wheel/edit wars. This is why I proposed on [[Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats]] that 'crats be given the authority to desysop/block in a wheel/edit war to defuse it and get discussion flowing again. This doesn't have to indicate that the warriors' initial actions were wrong -- all it indicates is that their warring was wrong. No need for legalism when the existing rules are already being disobeyed. Just give the rules teeth -- I can think of so many loopholes in Phil Welch's proposal that it just wouldn't be workable -- it'd basically make mistakes close to unpardonable.
It would inevitably add to the workload of the ArbCom. Your suggestion has a lot of merit, because having Jimbo step in to stomp on fingers should be a last resort (and as you point out, he could be doing something else at the time), and if a problem has reached wheel-warring stage, then admins aren't going to be able to fix it decisively in the heat of battle.
While I don't like the legalese and penalty clauses, I do like the basic thrust of Phil Welch's proposal - that an admin action may be reversed ONCE by another admin and after that discussion is mandatory. Make it a guideline.
Peter (Skyring)
While I don't like the legalese and penalty clauses, I do like the basic thrust of Phil Welch's proposal - that an admin action may be reversed ONCE by another admin and after that discussion is mandatory. Make it a guideline.
We already have a guideline and it's not stopping anyone. A credible threat of desysopping will stop people one way or another.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
While I don't like the legalese and penalty clauses, I do like the basic thrust of Phil Welch's proposal - that an admin action may be reversed ONCE by another admin and after that discussion is
mandatory.
Make it a guideline.
We already have a guideline and it's not stopping anyone. A credible threat of desysopping will stop people one way or another.
The threat is credible now. Ask the half-dozen who just discovered this.
Peter (Skyring)
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Wheelwars usually start when the overturning of a decision is overturned. At such a time any further changes need to be discussed.
Exactly; I think that's a good guideline. If something is done unilaterally and it's reverted (e.g. blocking a user; speedy-deleting a page, moving a page, etc.), it should be discussed at least briefly before being re-instituted.
Of course, it doesn't help when our own Jimmy Wales ignores this guideline, even going so far as to use beaurocrat powers to "win" a wheel war.
-Mark
Wheelwars usually start when the overturning of a decision is overturned. At such a time any further changes need to be discussed.
Exactly; I think that's a good guideline. If something is done unilaterally and it's reverted (e.g. blocking a user; speedy- deleting a page, moving a page, etc.), it should be discussed at least briefly before being re-instituted.
Of course, it doesn't help when our own Jimmy Wales ignores this guideline, even going so far as to use beaurocrat powers to "win" a wheel war.
You're acting like Jimbo is just another admin. He's not. He's Jimbo.
Philip Welch wrote:
You're acting like Jimbo is just another admin. He's not. He's Jimbo.
All the more reason that it's distasteful for him to get involve in wheel-warring. These sorts of petty power-fights, combined with his flaming of several users on the mailing list as "unqualified" to edit Wikipedia, reduce my confidence in his ability to lead Wikipedia.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Philip Welch wrote:
You're acting like Jimbo is just another admin. He's not. He's Jimbo.
All the more reason that it's distasteful for him to get involve in wheel-warring. These sorts of petty power-fights, combined with his flaming of several users on the mailing list as "unqualified" to edit Wikipedia, reduce my confidence in his ability to lead Wikipedia.
Jimbo is one of the few clear voices of sanity that prevails on this crazy project. Writing articles is not the only way that people can contribute to Wikipedia, and Jimbo has done much in the media to highlight just how good we are for what could have been so chaotic. And I don't recall him *ever* flaming people on this mailing list; but that hasn't stopped people from attacking *him*, and to be honest, he deserves better.
On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Philip Welch wrote:
You're acting like Jimbo is just another admin. He's not. He's Jimbo.
All the more reason that it's distasteful for him to get involve in wheel-warring. These sorts of petty power-fights, combined with his flaming of several users on the mailing list as "unqualified" to edit Wikipedia, reduce my confidence in his ability to lead Wikipedia.
Jimbo is one of the few clear voices of sanity that prevails on this crazy project. Writing articles is not the only way that people can contribute to Wikipedia, and Jimbo has done much in the media to highlight just how good we are for what could have been so chaotic. And I don't recall him *ever* flaming people on this mailing list; but that hasn't stopped people from attacking *him*, and to be honest, he deserves better.
-- Alphax
His recent record is not the most impressive. People are going to complain about this.
-- geni
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
And I don't recall him *ever* flaming people on this mailing list; but that hasn't stopped people from attacking *him*, and to be honest, he deserves better.
If you'd like to be reminded, here's an exchange I had in mind, from December 16, 2005:
1. Jimbo says that he thinks anyone who saw the Seigenthaler article should've seen that the mistakes were "blatantly obvious" and "transparently outlandish".
2. Anthony DiPierro replies that they were not obvious to him.
3. Jimbo replies: "Anthony, I'm not normally one to state harsh opinions. But frankly, if you don't find those errors to be blindingly obvious, you need to find another hobby. Writing an encyclopedia is quite frankly beyond you."
Note that several other of us had also expressed agreement with Anthony's point in #2, so Jimbo explicitly and publicly flamed a handful of dedicated and long-time Wikipedia contributors.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
And I don't recall him *ever* flaming people on this mailing list; but that hasn't stopped people from attacking *him*, and to be honest, he deserves better.
If you'd like to be reminded, here's an exchange I had in mind, from December 16, 2005:
- Jimbo says that he thinks anyone who saw the Seigenthaler article
should've seen that the mistakes were "blatantly obvious" and "transparently outlandish".
Anthony DiPierro replies that they were not obvious to him.
Jimbo replies: "Anthony, I'm not normally one to state harsh
opinions. But frankly, if you don't find those errors to be blindingly obvious, you need to find another hobby. Writing an encyclopedia is quite frankly beyond you."
Note that several other of us had also expressed agreement with Anthony's point in #2, so Jimbo explicitly and publicly flamed a handful of dedicated and long-time Wikipedia contributors.
Well, I was on wikibreak between November 20th and December 30th, including not being subscribed to this list. How was I to know?
Also, I think you are being a little harsh - I mean, he was only on the verge of being sued, having the site shut down, press attacking on all sides, etc...
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Delirium wrote:
If you'd like to be reminded, here's an exchange I had in mind, from December 16, 2005:
- Jimbo says that he thinks anyone who saw the Seigenthaler article
should've seen that the mistakes were "blatantly obvious" and "transparently outlandish".
Anthony DiPierro replies that they were not obvious to him.
Jimbo replies: "Anthony, I'm not normally one to state harsh
opinions. But frankly, if you don't find those errors to be blindingly obvious, you need to find another hobby. Writing an encyclopedia is quite frankly beyond you."
Note that several other of us had also expressed agreement with Anthony's point in #2, so Jimbo explicitly and publicly flamed a handful of dedicated and long-time Wikipedia contributors.
Well, I was on wikibreak between November 20th and December 30th, including not being subscribed to this list. How was I to know?
Also, I think you are being a little harsh - I mean, he was only on the verge of being sued, having the site shut down, press attacking on all sides, etc...
Sounds like a normal day on a mega-site.
Ec
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Delirium wrote:
If you'd like to be reminded, here's an exchange I had in mind, from December 16, 2005:
- Jimbo says that he thinks anyone who saw the Seigenthaler article
should've seen that the mistakes were "blatantly obvious" and "transparently outlandish".
Anthony DiPierro replies that they were not obvious to him.
Jimbo replies: "Anthony, I'm not normally one to state harsh
opinions. But frankly, if you don't find those errors to be blindingly obvious, you need to find another hobby. Writing an encyclopedia is quite frankly beyond you."
Note that several other of us had also expressed agreement with Anthony's point in #2, so Jimbo explicitly and publicly flamed a handful of dedicated and long-time Wikipedia contributors.
Well, I was on wikibreak between November 20th and December 30th, including not being subscribed to this list. How was I to know?
Also, I think you are being a little harsh - I mean, he was only on the verge of being sued, having the site shut down, press attacking on all sides, etc...
Sounds like a normal day on a mega-site.
Ec
I don't think that's the point, though. Wouldn't you be just a little testy if the site you'd poured your entire existence into for the past 5 years was threatening to get shut down in 5 seconds?
(Yes, this is an exaggeration, but 5 to 5 sounds better.)
--
Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
Jay Converse wrote:
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Delirium wrote:
If you'd like to be reminded, here's an exchange I had in mind, from December 16, 2005:
- Jimbo says that he thinks anyone who saw the Seigenthaler article
should've seen that the mistakes were "blatantly obvious" and "transparently outlandish".
Anthony DiPierro replies that they were not obvious to him.
Jimbo replies: "Anthony, I'm not normally one to state harsh
opinions. But frankly, if you don't find those errors to be blindingly obvious, you need to find another hobby. Writing an encyclopedia is quite frankly beyond you."
Note that several other of us had also expressed agreement with Anthony's point in #2, so Jimbo explicitly and publicly flamed a handful of dedicated and long-time Wikipedia contributors.
Also, I think you are being a little harsh - I mean, he was only on the verge of being sued, having the site shut down, press attacking on all sides, etc...
Sounds like a normal day on a mega-site.
Ec
I don't think that's the point, though. Wouldn't you be just a little testy if the site you'd poured your entire existence into for the past 5 years was threatening to get shut down in 5 seconds?
(Yes, this is an exaggeration, but 5 to 5 sounds better.)
But your first analysis was a little paranoid. Shutting down the site was not seriously mentioned; press attacks are sexy in the media, and unfounded lawsuits can be a fact of life for a big enough organization.
Ec
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jay Converse wrote:
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Delirium wrote:
If you'd like to be reminded, here's an exchange I had in mind, from December 16, 2005:
- Jimbo says that he thinks anyone who saw the Seigenthaler article
should've seen that the mistakes were "blatantly obvious" and "transparently outlandish".
Anthony DiPierro replies that they were not obvious to him.
Jimbo replies: "Anthony, I'm not normally one to state harsh
opinions. But frankly, if you don't find those errors to be
blindingly
obvious, you need to find another hobby. Writing an encyclopedia is quite frankly beyond you."
Note that several other of us had also expressed agreement with Anthony's point in #2, so Jimbo explicitly and publicly flamed a
handful
of dedicated and long-time Wikipedia contributors.
Also, I think you are being a little harsh - I mean, he was only on the verge of being sued, having the site shut down, press attacking on all sides, etc...
Sounds like a normal day on a mega-site.
Ec
I don't think that's the point, though. Wouldn't you be just a little
testy
if the site you'd poured your entire existence into for the past 5 years
was
threatening to get shut down in 5 seconds?
(Yes, this is an exaggeration, but 5 to 5 sounds better.)
But your first analysis was a little paranoid. Shutting down the site was not seriously mentioned; press attacks are sexy in the media, and unfounded lawsuits can be a fact of life for a big enough organization.
Ec
Well, that was Alphax's analysis, not mine. I do realize that shutting the site down never was a possibility, but you still have to admit that media attention on the scale that Wikipedia, and by extension Jimbo, are getting is enough to try anyone's patience when they're trying to fix what the media's yelling at them for.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
Jay Converse wrote:
... you still have to admit that media attention on the scale that Wikipedia, and by extension Jimbo, are getting is enough to try anyone's patience when they're trying to fix what the media's yelling at them for.
For a website even negative media attention can bring more users. In many situations media attention has unexpected effects, as with the Danish cartoons about Mohammed.
Ec
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was Alphax's analysis, not mine. I do realize that shutting the site down never was a possibility, but you still have to admit that media attention on the scale that Wikipedia, and by extension Jimbo, are getting is enough to try anyone's patience when they're trying to fix what the media's yelling at them for.
Is that an excuse I can try?
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was Alphax's analysis, not mine. I do realize that shutting the site down never was a possibility, but you still have to admit that media attention on the scale that Wikipedia, and by extension Jimbo, are getting is enough to try anyone's patience when they're trying to fix what the media's yelling at them for.
Is that an excuse I can try?
-- geni
Certainly. Once you start regularly receiving requests for interviews from international media about your top-ten Web site, you will be welcome to use that "excuse."
- -- Sean Barrett | Those who cannot remember the past are sean@epoptic.org | condemned to learn it from Oliver Stone movies.
On 2/9/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was Alphax's analysis, not mine. I do realize that shutting the site down never was a possibility, but you still have to admit that media attention on the scale that Wikipedia, and by extension Jimbo, are getting is enough to try anyone's patience when they're trying to fix what the media's yelling at them for.
Is that an excuse I can try?
-- geni
Certainly. Once you start regularly receiving requests for interviews from international media about your top-ten Web site, you will be welcome to use that "excuse."
Oh well jimbo is safe enough from that one. Wikipedia is not a top ten website yet. -- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and rethinking my role here. If El C and Carbonite leave we have lost a lot more than can be counted in them just as individuals. El C, for one, made this place fun, and if you aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
Are we here to have fun or to write an encyclopaedia?
While a sense of community is important, it is not the top priority. A lot of userbox people seem to be here to have fun, and I'm of the opinion that someone having fun with a needless userbox precipitated this latest crisis. We should keep our eye on the ball.
I've seen people come and go here. Some say they'll go and come back after a few weeks. Some leave for good. I say to them, thanks for your contributions. May you take joy from your future path.
But Wikipedia endures, and I make no doubt that the sense of shock and dismay from this episode will fade and ways will be found to deal with the problem(s) that caused it, and the project will emerge all the stronger for it, because there are too many good folk here to let all this effort go to waste.
Peter (Skyring)
On 2/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and rethinking my role here. If El C and Carbonite leave we have lost a lot more than can be counted in them just as individuals. El C, for one, made this place fun, and if you aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
Are we here to have fun or to write an encyclopaedia?
Actually, to have fun. We are unpaid volunteers. This is a hobby. If it isn't fun, if it isn't enjoyable, then there is no reason to stick around and no way to build this encyclopaedia. No fun, no community = no encyclopaedia.
Ian
Are we here to have fun or to write an encyclopaedia?
Actually, to have fun. We are unpaid volunteers. This is a hobby. If it isn't fun, if it isn't enjoyable, then there is no reason to stick around and no way to build this encyclopaedia. No fun, no community = no encyclopaedia.
I propose a new Wikipedia policy:
*Everybody have fun tonight. *Everybody Wang Chung tonight.
On Feb 6, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Guettarda wrote:
On 2/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and rethinking my role here. If El C and Carbonite leave we have lost a lot more than can be counted in them just as individuals. El C, for one, made this place fun, and if you aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
Are we here to have fun or to write an encyclopaedia?
Actually, to have fun. We are unpaid volunteers. This is a hobby. If it isn't fun, if it isn't enjoyable, then there is no reason to stick around and no way to build this encyclopaedia. No fun, no community = no encyclopaedia.
Actually, that's not *exactly* true; no community = no changes to the encyclopedia. It's free content. The mirrors aren't going anywhere; the various full(i.e. including history) dumps aren't going anywhere. This is a point that needs to be remembered. We are * making more encyclopedic free content * , that's all.
It certainly needs to be rewarding, or the community will leave - but fun is hardly the only form of reward that people can have. Achievement, social recognition, physical stimulation, all of these are forms of reward. (Not that Wikipedia provides much in the way of pleasurable physical stimulation, but let's not go there...)
Jesse Weinstein
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jesse W
It certainly needs to be rewarding, or the community will leave - but fun is hardly the only form of reward that people can have. Achievement, social recognition, physical stimulation, all of these are forms of reward. (Not that Wikipedia provides much in the way of pleasurable physical stimulation, but let's not go there...)
I think that a lot of editors beaver away at their chosen field and take satisfaction from getting an article written. I know I certainly enjoy slotting another fact into place in this vast jigsaw.
It's silly, but the biggest thrill I had was from finding an article that needed to be written about a historic little church in Richmond. I did some research, wrote the article, wikified it and uploaded a photograph, all without the input of others until after I'd finished and folk came along to cat and dab it.
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and rethinking my role here. If El C and Carbonite leave we have lost a lot more than can be counted in them just as individuals. El C, for one, made this place fun, and if you aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
Are we here to have fun or to write an encyclopaedia?
While a sense of community is important, it is not the top priority. A lot of userbox people seem to be here to have fun, and I'm of the opinion that someone having fun with a needless userbox precipitated this latest crisis. We should keep our eye on the ball.
I've seen people come and go here. Some say they'll go and come back after a few weeks. Some leave for good. I say to them, thanks for your contributions. May you take joy from your future path.
But Wikipedia endures, and I make no doubt that the sense of shock and dismay from this episode will fade and ways will be found to deal with the problem(s) that caused it, and the project will emerge all the stronger for it, because there are too many good folk here to let all this effort go to waste.
Peter (Skyring)
I think we're all here to have fun. I know I enjoy clerking for the arbcom and writing articles -- otherwise I wouldn't be clerking and I wouldn't have 20+ featured articles to my name. What's wrong is having fun without involving the encyclopedia at all -- i.e. spending all or most (>90%) of your time userboxing. I firmly believe these kinds of users are in the minority, however. There are many userbox fanatics who do great work around here, some of whom are admins ([[User:Firefox]] and [[User:Karmafist]] come to mind).
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of John Lee
I think we're all here to have fun. I know I enjoy clerking for the arbcom and writing articles -- otherwise I wouldn't be clerking and I wouldn't have 20+ featured articles to my name. What's wrong is having fun without involving the encyclopedia at all -- i.e. spending all or most (>90%) of your time userboxing. I firmly believe these kinds of users are in the minority, however. There are many userbox fanatics who do great work around here, some of whom are admins ([[User:Firefox]] and [[User:Karmafist]] come to mind).
I certainly don't exclude fun from my idea of Wikipedia. Heaven forfend we should be a race of dour, grey-faced editors humourlessly churning out articles. But when it's a *choice* between having fun and writing an encyclopaedia, fun *must* come second. It's the gravy on the meat, the icing on the top, the pom-pom on the beret. Not essential, but well, fun.
Peter (Skyring)
John Lee wrote: <snip>
There are many userbox fanatics who do great work around here, some of whom are admins ([[User:Firefox]] and [[User:Karmafist]] come to mind).
[[User:FireFox]] you mean, and [[User:Karmafist]] was desysopped in the latest wheel war...
On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
John Lee wrote:
<snip> > There are many userbox fanatics who do great work around here, some > of whom are admins ([[User:Firefox]] and [[User:Karmafist]] come to > mind). >
[[User:FireFox]] you mean, and [[User:Karmafist]] was desysopped in the latest wheel war...
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Merovingian racked up 66% support in the election with this userpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Merovingian&oldid=3501004...
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
John Lee wrote:
<snip>
There are many userbox fanatics who do great work around here, some of whom are admins ([[User:Firefox]] and [[User:Karmafist]] come to mind).
[[User:FireFox]] you mean, and [[User:Karmafist]] was desysopped in the latest wheel war...
Merovingian racked up 66% support in the election with this userpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Merovingian&oldid=3501004...
Check my vote and the reason.
On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
John Lee wrote:
<snip>
There are many userbox fanatics who do great work around here, some of whom are admins ([[User:Firefox]] and [[User:Karmafist]] come to mind).
[[User:FireFox]] you mean, and [[User:Karmafist]] was desysopped in the latest wheel war...
Merovingian racked up 66% support in the election with this userpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Merovingian&oldid=3501004...
Check my vote and the reason.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
That doesn't affect my point.
-- geni
On 2/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
- Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately without further review.
"Without further review" is unclear to me - you mean that the desysopping takes place immediately (sounds ok), or that there is no potential for review of this action afterwards (sounds like trouble).
- Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months
before starting the process to regain admin status.
Sounds unnecessarily harsh. Maybe first-time offence warrants a one week a suspension, then subsequent offences give the treatment you suggest?
Any chance of sysop suspensions for blatant breaches of policy? Eg, protecting pages you're working on, blocking users for personal disagreement, etc...
Steve
"Without further review" is unclear to me - you mean that the desysopping takes place immediately (sounds ok), or that there is no potential for review of this action afterwards (sounds like trouble).
Yeah, I've fixed that part.
?4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months before starting the process to regain admin status.
Sounds unnecessarily harsh. Maybe first-time offence warrants a one week a suspension, then subsequent offences give the treatment you suggest?
I've removed this part entirely.
Any chance of sysop suspensions for blatant breaches of policy? Eg, protecting pages you're working on, blocking users for personal disagreement, etc...
Eh, outside the scope of what I'm working for.
Philip Welch wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
I instinctively recoil from the instruction creep, but the last few days suggests it may well be necessary.
However:
Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion.
This disturbs me a bit. I can think of many legitimate examples where an admin might reverse another admin's action without discussion. I did it just a couple of days ago, for instance, where I undeleted an article that had been incorrectly tagged for speedying and then deleted. I didn't discuss this with the deleting admin (I didn't think it needed discussing, frankly; I did leave a courtesy note explaining what I'd done on his talk page). Was this 'wheel warring'? Under your policy it would get me desysopped.
Cheers,
N.
Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate discussion.
This disturbs me a bit. I can think of many legitimate examples where an admin might reverse another admin's action without discussion. I did it just a couple of days ago, for instance, where I undeleted an article that had been incorrectly tagged for speedying and then deleted. I didn't discuss this with the deleting admin (I didn't think it needed discussing, frankly; I did leave a courtesy note explaining what I'd done on his talk page). Was this 'wheel warring'? Under your policy it would get me desysopped.
I agree and have changed this part of the proposal already.
Philip Welch wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
By the way, I think it's a massive, massive shame that the current guideline:
* If you think something is a good idea, do it. * If people disagree, take a step back and discuss.
isn't enough on its own to stop people wheel warring.
Cheers,
N.
On 2/7/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Philip Welch wrote:
I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
By the way, I think it's a massive, massive shame that the current guideline:
* If you think something is a good idea, do it. * If people disagree, take a step back and discuss.isn't enough on its own to stop people wheel warring.
Hear, hear, Nick! You're absolutely right!
Mgm
On 2/7/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
By the way, I think it's a massive, massive shame that the current guideline:
* If you think something is a good idea, do it. * If people disagree, take a step back and discuss.isn't enough on its own to stop people wheel warring.
I'm not sure that the solution to people ignoring a simple guideline is to make a complex one.
-Matt
On 2/7/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
By the way, I think it's a massive, massive shame that the current guideline:
* If you think something is a good idea, do it. * If people disagree, take a step back and discuss.isn't enough on its own to stop people wheel warring.
It might be if you added:
* Flagrant violations of this guideline may result in desysopping.
Steve