Message: 3 Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 03:51:37 +0100 From: "A Nony Mouse" tempforcomments@hotmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: BAY18-F208BD9D4BEDD1DD4C87D44B8040@phx.gbl Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

I have been watching the last week's events with dismay. I have been

trying

to compose this email for two hours, but every time I get close,

something

else comes up.

I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of you

would

react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would be harassed for this.

Good idea, I think.

There are two cases that bother me. Jack Lynch aka Sam Spade and

Cranston

Snord aka Enviroknot. Both of these cases scare me because of the

precedent

that they have set.

In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war. Administrators were fighting over what to do with him. This is not a good thing for Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It indicates that the user is

less

of a concern than something between the two Administrators.

Maybe we should refer this case to an arbitration committee or -if it gets really bad - to Jimbo himself. However, Jimbo (being a head honcho) is probably a busy man, so referring to someone below is probably preferable before sending it off to Jimbo.

It is the case of Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot that worries me more.

This

is the case that has made me take the drastic step of sending an email

to

the list anonymously. I had originally been trying to type up a response

to

Cranston's concerns about being blocked. I believe that SlimVirgin

violated

policy by doing so. Unfortunately for me, such an email would likely now

be

a day late and a dollar short.

Cranston was a disruption to the list, but much of that disruption was caused by other people on this list treating him with incredible

disrespect.

I was taken aback by his accusations against administrators but having looked at the cases in hand I believe that he has a point. There were emails on this list asking whether anyone was taking him seriously. This is the height of arrogance, and it is something that frightens me. Administrators should never be acting as if ordinary

editors

do not matter.

As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on this

board

hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have a duty to investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for users who have been wronged. I took the time to investigate SlimVirgin's blocking of

Enviroknot,

and I believe that it is not valid.

By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails

long,

and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save

SlimVirgin

had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way. SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good faith should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some content that is included in a later reversion.

Okay, but how do we distinguish an edit made in good faith from a "reversion"? What if this edit contains mainly stuff from an earlier revision that had been superseded, along with some new info? That could be a reversion, one might argue, but it has a hint of fresh editing, too.

Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were universally dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email. One went so far as to

demand

that the term "rogue admin" not be used, without addressing the reasons

that

it had been brought up in multiple cases recently.

Suppose that rogue admins DO exist. What do we do about them?

We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on Wikipedia. We have a problem with administrators not applying policy correctly. And we have a problem with arrogance on these lists, with administrators believing that they are somehow better than others.

With the increased power of administrator access comes a responsibility

to

use it fairly and adhere to the established procedures and policies. The actions of an Administrator should themselves be NPOV. We have stated

policy

that when a user is found to be violating policy, if they return and do

not

break policy, their previous transgressions should not be held against

them.

There are a number of administrators who are failing in that

responsibility,

and they are present on this list. One of them, rather than addressing Enviroknot's concerns in a calm tone and actually going over policy,

chose

to kickban Enviroknot entirely.

Oops. That's something called "laziness", or "impatience", or sometimes, just plain being forgetful. In such cases, we should stop, take a breath, rethink what we are doing for a moment, and review the cases of folks such as Enviroknot. Dealing with admins fairly will go a LONG way towards improving Wikipedia.