Well, let me put it this way: if someone (say, Admin Example) reverts a block on a given troublemaker for whatever reason, then the troublemaker becomes that person's (i.e. Admin Example's) problem. The Admin who blocked the troublemaker in the first place should be allowed to go on with her/his business on Wikipedia.
That's my opinion on the matter. YMMV.
Geoff
It sounds like the Admins need a coordinator or manager. I'd be happy to volunteer for that job. (Any Admins who want me to manage them, email me or leave me a note on my talk page.{
I've already taken on the role of Coordinator by creating and maintaining [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]. It survived a vote and has received community approval. A number of Admins have used it.
It's for those cases which are not clearcut: things other than "simple vandalism" or "3RR violation". Anything where you're not sure enough to do it by yourself, quietly, but you don't want to make a big arbcom matter out of it.
Ed Poor
On 9/29/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
It sounds like the Admins need a coordinator or manager. I'd be happy to volunteer for that job. (Any Admins who want me to manage them, email me or leave me a note on my talk page.{
I've already taken on the role of Coordinator by creating and maintaining [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]. It survived a vote and has received community approval. A number of Admins have used it.
It's for those cases which are not clearcut: things other than "simple vandalism" or "3RR violation". Anything where you're not sure enough to do it by yourself, quietly, but you don't want to make a big arbcom matter out of it.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Wikipedia definitely needs more managers.
Kelly
"Kelly Martin" kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote in message news:bd4c411e05092908302303f09b@mail.gmail.com... On 9/29/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
It sounds like the Admins need a coordinator or manager. I'd be happy to volunteer for that job. (Any Admins who want me to manage them, email me or leave me a note on my talk page.{ I've already taken on the role of Coordinator by creating and maintaining [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]. It survived a vote and has received community approval. A number of Admins have used it.
Hasn't been updated since 23Sep, and the talk page is even older.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Wikipedia definitely needs more managers.
Wikipedia needs more people to stand up and say: "Here's a job needs, doing, let's do it." And then be willing to coordinate things until the job is done; sometimes the job is *never* done.
"Manager" isn't automatically a dirty word, you know. There's a few rotten apples :-)
Yeah, that's the ticket. Wikipedia definitely needs more managers.
Wikipedia needs more people to stand up and say: "Here's a job needs, doing, let's do it." And then be willing to coordinate things until the job is done; sometimes the job is *never* done.
"Manager" isn't automatically a dirty word, you know. There's a few rotten apples :-) -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
The only reason the wikipedia still exists is because ordinary people are impowered to do things needing done, rather than being obligated to report to some "manager". The answer to this particular problem is decentralisation of power, not the placement of yet more power in the hands of Ed Poor. Fer Crissakes...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Phil Boswell wrote:
On 9/29/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
It sounds like the Admins need a coordinator or manager. I'd be happy to volunteer for that job. (Any Admins who want me to manage them, email me or leave me a note on my talk page.{ I've already taken on the role of Coordinator by creating and maintaining [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]. It survived a vote and has received community approval. A number of Admins have used it.
Hasn't been updated since 23Sep, and the talk page is even older.
A look at "What links here" shows that almost nothing links there: a number of Talk pages, & [[Deletion Log]]. (On the other hand, 23 Sept. is not that long ago: I just responded to a comment from February of this year.) I added a link to it from the Admin's Required Reading page; let's see if that improves its visibility.
[snip]
Wikipedia needs more people to stand up and say: "Here's a job needs, doing, let's do it." And then be willing to coordinate things until the job is done; sometimes the job is *never* done.
I've made one possibily important discussion page easier to find by Admins. Anyone else want to help collect these things?
Geoff
On 9/30/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
I've made one possibily important discussion page easier to find by Admins. Anyone else want to help collect these things?
Geoff
Nope. Anything really dodgey should turn up at AN/I. Otherwise learn to take responcbility for your descissions.
-- geni
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, geni wrote:
On 9/30/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
I've made one possibily important discussion page easier to find by Admins. Anyone else want to help collect these things?
Geoff
Nope. Anything really dodgey should turn up at AN/I. Otherwise learn to take responcbility for your descissions.
I try to. Unfortunately, I fear that I am not the only Admin who tries to spend more time contributing material to Wikipedia than keeping up on new policy decisions, & so I worry about some act of WikiLawyering making a major change below my radar.
In other words: I'd like to be sure everyone else is taking responsibility for her/his decisions, too.
Geoff
On 9/30/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
I try to. Unfortunately, I fear that I am not the only Admin who tries to spend more time contributing material to Wikipedia than keeping up on new policy decisions, & so I worry about some act of WikiLawyering making a major change below my radar.
If you missed it it doesn't matter. I'm yet to run into a bit of WikiLawyering that couldn't be got out of with another bit of WikiLawyering
In other words: I'd like to be sure everyone else is taking responsibility for her/his decisions, too.
Geoff
we generaly find out when we hear the complaints.
-- geni
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Well, let me put it this way: if someone (say, Admin Example) reverts a block on a given troublemaker for whatever reason, then the troublemaker becomes that person's (i.e. Admin Example's) problem. The Admin who blocked the troublemaker in the first place should be allowed to go on with her/his business on Wikipedia.
That's my opinion on the matter. YMMV.
Geoff
It sounds like the Admins need a coordinator or manager. I'd be happy to volunteer for that job. (Any Admins who want me to manage them, email me or leave me a note on my talk page.{
It does? That's a surprise to me -- & I'm the one who came up with this interpretation. As of this writing, I don't know if anyone else on Wikipedia agrees with me, so creating "a coordinator or manager" would just be one more example of instruction creep.
What I'm saying is common sense: if someone asks me as an admin to lift a block, one of the first things I should do -- if I want to be responsible -- is a little research to learn why that person got banned in the first place. Maybe a newbie made a mistake; maybe an admin made a mistake. Or maybe I've been approached by the latest sockpuppet of (insert your choice of headache-inducing troublemaker here).
And if I lift the ban, then it is also my responsibility to follow the user for a while -- maybe a day or two -- just to make sure I did the right thing. Some veteran troublemakers have learned how to believably pass themselves off as a newbie who made an honest mistake: I know I've been fooled once or twice (but fortunately I learned of my misjudgement before I lifted a block).
Sheesh, if we need managers (or similar ilk) to make us use common sense on Wikipedia, maybe should close the whole project down & pass the task back to Brittanica or Encarta.
I've already taken on the role of Coordinator by creating and maintaining [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]. It survived a vote and has received community approval. A number of Admins have used it.
It's for those cases which are not clearcut: things other than "simple vandalism" or "3RR violation". Anything where you're not sure enough to do it by yourself, quietly, but you don't want to make a big arbcom matter out of it.
On one hand, this appears to be what I was asking for a few emails back: when one Admin is bold, let the rest of us know. But on the other, there is now Yet Another Forum to Read to determine if someone is a troublemaker. One of the current weaknesses with Wikipedia is that to do a consciencious job, a member -- whether an Admin, a contributor, or simply anyone interested in doing more than proofreading or making a random contribution -- has to follow an increasing number of fora to keep up with guidelines, proposals & the usual 100 & 1 things needed to do a good job. (For example, I've stayed away from helping with the backlog of closing articles at either AfD or the Copyvios because the process as explained is too difficult to understand. [[WP:IAR]] only works for a limited number of similar cases.)
The Signpost was one solution to this problem, but keeping something like it going can be a big job in itself, & I wonder if it will scale in step with this proliferation of discussion sites.
Maybe I need a Wikivacation. Too many of my last emails have been rants.
Geoff
On 9/29/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Well, let me put it this way: if someone (say, Admin Example) reverts a block on a given troublemaker for whatever reason, then the troublemaker becomes that person's (i.e. Admin Example's) problem. The Admin who blocked the troublemaker in the first place should be allowed to go on with her/his business on Wikipedia.
That's my opinion on the matter. YMMV.
Geoff
It sounds like the Admins need a coordinator or manager. I'd be happy to volunteer for that job. (Any Admins who want me to manage them, email me or leave me a note on my talk page.{
It does? That's a surprise to me -- & I'm the one who came up with this interpretation. As of this writing, I don't know if anyone else on Wikipedia agrees with me, so creating "a coordinator or manager" would just be one more example of instruction creep.
What I'm saying is common sense: if someone asks me as an admin to lift a block, one of the first things I should do -- if I want to be responsible -- is a little research to learn why that person got banned in the first place. Maybe a newbie made a mistake; maybe an admin made a mistake. Or maybe I've been approached by the latest sockpuppet of (insert your choice of headache-inducing troublemaker here).
And if I lift the ban, then it is also my responsibility to follow the user for a while -- maybe a day or two -- just to make sure I did the right thing. Some veteran troublemakers have learned how to believably pass themselves off as a newbie who made an honest mistake: I know I've been fooled once or twice (but fortunately I learned of my misjudgement before I lifted a block).
Sheesh, if we need managers (or similar ilk) to make us use common sense on Wikipedia, maybe should close the whole project down & pass the task back to Brittanica or Encarta.
I've already taken on the role of Coordinator by creating and maintaining [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]. It survived a vote and has received community approval. A number of Admins have used it.
It's for those cases which are not clearcut: things other than "simple vandalism" or "3RR violation". Anything where you're not sure enough to do it by yourself, quietly, but you don't want to make a big arbcom matter out of it.
On one hand, this appears to be what I was asking for a few emails back: when one Admin is bold, let the rest of us know. But on the other, there is now Yet Another Forum to Read to determine if someone is a troublemaker. One of the current weaknesses with Wikipedia is that to do a consciencious job, a member -- whether an Admin, a contributor, or simply anyone interested in doing more than proofreading or making a random contribution -- has to follow an increasing number of fora to keep up with guidelines, proposals & the usual 100 & 1 things needed to do a good job. (For example, I've stayed away from helping with the backlog of closing articles at either AfD or the Copyvios because the process as explained is too difficult to understand. [[WP:IAR]] only works for a limited number of similar cases.)
The Signpost was one solution to this problem, but keeping something like it going can be a big job in itself, & I wonder if it will scale in step with this proliferation of discussion sites.
Maybe I need a Wikivacation. Too many of my last emails have been rants.
Geoff
Actually, rant or no, you make a brilliant meta-point. On articles or on policy pages, there need to be "hubs" (or "nodes", call it what you will) where various related articles are all linked to from a central hub. Otherwise, useful content can't be found, and is neglected or ignored, to the detriment of both those who would like to use / read it, and the article itself, which stagnates. We need more "hubs", and less random articles badly strung together. Looking for a useful policy page should be less like untangling last years christmas lights. Thats why I'm a mergist (or is that emergent? ;) Wikipedian.
Jack (Sam Spade)