Venting about JzG Options

[guy]

Also, I read somewhere that there should be a reason for a check-user to be done.

That's the theory, and I believe is also the practice at many Wikimedia sites. It is not the practice on English Wikipedia, where people like David Gerard say that they have the right to checkuser anyone on a whim.

[Newyorkbrad]

remember, you don't necessarily do yourself any favors by providing more details, even if we can safely assume that NYB and myself are both completely trustworthy.

Oh yeah, that helped relieve some of my paranoia! ;-p

You should be able to PM him (and me, natch) from here, and the board will send an e-mail notifying him that he's gotten a PM from you. The only things that would prevent that would be if he'd specifically blocked you from PM'ing him, which I wouldn't imagine he'd do, or if his PM folders are filled up, which is unlikely since we doubled the size of everyone's folders just last week...

Thank you. This is a very complicated issue regarding my friend. Perhaps by helping me with my recent attempt at registering a userID at Wikipedia, which first said I was an impersonator of an admin, then says I'm a sockpuppet of my deceased friend.

Also, I read somewhere that there should be a reason for a check-user to be done. I'd like to know why it was done in the first place, and how in the world it was justified to connect it to my friend as confirmed by FT2 at THAT!

BTW, I'm a woman. In addition to my 3 children and large husband -- we have 2 Great Danes, and a Rottweiler.

Now, I'm wondering if this is all worth it. But, it may affect me and mine on Wikipedia in the future, (even though I forbid my kids from using it because I think it's naughty. Yet, I know they use it anyway) so this may or will continue to add to this woman's rap sheet which is sad and incompetent on Wikipedia's part.

I guess I will PM NYB since he is an ArbCom member, but I have doubts. FT2 is an arbCom member, and it looks like he forwarded my email to the committee? But, there it is, still there, that I'm a "confirmed" sockpuppet of a dead person. *Sigh*

(I'm having problems with the quote markup here. Oops, there it is....finally worked.)

I'll think about what to do and say in later, because right now my Rotty is chewing on my arm and it's difficult to type.

Just a note to anyone concerned that I have received a communication from Iamlost and am dealing with the situation.

Newyorkbrad

[Janron]

remember, you don't necessarily do yourself any favors by providing more details, even if we can safely assume that NYB and myself are both completely trustworthy.

Oh yeah, that helped relieve some of my paranoia! ;-p

You should be able to PM him (and me, natch) from here, and the board will send an e-mail notifying him that he's gotten a PM from you. The only things that would prevent that would be if he'd specifically blocked you from PM'ing him, which I wouldn't imagine he'd do, or if his PM folders are filled up, which is unlikely since we doubled the size of everyone's folders just last week...

Thank you. This is a very complicated issue regarding my friend. Perhaps by helping me with my recent attempt at registering a userID at Wikipedia, which first said I was an impersonator of an admin, then says I'm a sockpuppet of my deceased friend.

Also, I read somewhere that there should be a reason for a check-user to be done. I'd like to know why it was done in the first place, and how in the world it was justified to connect it to my friend as confirmed by FT2 at THAT!

BTW, I'm a woman. In addition to my 3 children and large husband -- we have 2 Great Danes, and a Rottweiler.

Now, I'm wondering if this is all worth it. But, it may affect me and mine on Wikipedia in the future, (even though I forbid my kids from using it because I think it's naughty. Yet, I know they use it anyway) so this may or will continue to add to this woman's rap sheet which is sad and incompetent on Wikipedia's part.

I guess I will PM NYB since he is an ArbCom member, but I have doubts. FT2 is an arbCom member, and it looks like he forwarded my email to the committee? But, there it is, still there, that I'm a "confirmed" sockpuppet of a dead person. *Sigh*

(I'm having problems with the quote markup here. Oops, there it is....finally worked.)

I'll think about what to do and say in later, because right now my Rotty is chewing on my arm and it's difficult to type.

Just a note to anyone concerned that I have received a communication from Iamlost and am dealing with the situation.

Newyorkbrad

Thank you very much, Newyorkbrad. I do have a couple of other (straggling) links of concern for your consideration, which I will email you soon.

Overall, this is very kind and appreciated. It should be noted that there are plenty admins and management people who do much good work on Wikipedia, such as yourself.

What puzzles me -- and this is a question I've often pondered -- why are the terms of administrators unlimited, unlike ArbCom membership? I believe having term limits would help reduce the burn-out rate which can contribute to bad behavior and faith of those with the power tools. Of course, I have more...but don't have the time right now, and don't believe this is the place to address these issues neither. : )

Thanks again, Mr Brad.

(Oh, btw, I don't have 2 Great Danes, but do have everything else I wrote up there. Although my husband isn't very big, just semi-athletic. lol)

This post has been edited by Iamlost: Tue 8th April 2008, 8:46pm

[guy]

why are the terms of administrators unlimited, unlike ArbCom membership? I believe having term limits would help reduce the burn-out rate which can contribute to bad behavior and faith of those with the power tools.

It varies from Wiki to Wiki. On some they have to be re-appointed annually. I expect the argument would be that you can't do it on WP because there would be three or four extra RfAs starting every day.

[Proabivouac]

why are the terms of administrators unlimited, unlike ArbCom membership? I believe having term limits would help reduce the burn-out rate which can contribute to bad behavior and faith of those with the power tools.

It varies from Wiki to Wiki. On some they have to be re-appointed annually. I expect the argument would be that you can't do it on WP because there would be three or four extra RfAs starting every day.

I would think the more important goals should be, making desysoping much, much easier (including temporary desysoping, like a block) - look at JzG, for example, you've some sixty people asking him to turn in the tools, but it makes no difference - and hindering administrators from operating as a class, say, by prohibiting administrators from voting on RfAs or desysoppings, prohibiting administrators from also being arbitrators, mediators or checkusers, etc., and most of all, putting an end to the admins IRC.

[Janron]

why are the terms of administrators unlimited, unlike ArbCom membership? I believe having term limits would help reduce the burn-out rate which can contribute to bad behavior and faith of those with the power tools.

It varies from Wiki to Wiki. On some they have to be re-appointed annually. I expect the argument would be that you can't do it on WP because there would be three or four extra RfAs starting every day.

I would think the more important goals should be, making desysoping much, much easier (including temporary desysoping, like a block) - look at JzG, for example, you've some sixty people asking him to turn in the tools, but it makes no difference - and hindering administrators from operating as a class, say, by prohibiting administrators from voting on RfAs or desysoppings, prohibiting administrators from also being arbitrators, mediators or checkusers, etc., and most of all, putting an end to the admins IRC.

I agree. Perhaps limited terms can be extended on a case-by-case basis for good behavior/actions without going through this process that does nothing but waste time?

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

why are the terms of administrators unlimited, unlike ArbCom membership? I believe having term limits would help reduce the burn-out rate which can contribute to bad behavior and faith of those with the power tools.

It varies from Wiki to Wiki. On some they have to be re-appointed annually. I expect the argument would be that you can't do it on WP because there would be three or four extra RfAs starting every day.

Most of the administrators are not a problem. If a large number of complaints are received about an administrator then that administrator should automatically have to go through an annual RfA.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

why are the terms of administrators unlimited, unlike ArbCom membership? I believe having term limits would help reduce the burn-out rate which can contribute to bad behavior and faith of those with the power tools.

It varies from Wiki to Wiki. On some they have to be re-appointed annually. I expect the argument would be that you can't do it on WP because there would be three or four extra RfAs starting every day.

Most of the administrators are not a problem. If a large number of complaints are received about an administrator then that administrator should automatically have to go through an annual RfA.

All administrators should have to write one FA/year (or equivalent creative effort) to keep their buttons. This would be a royal pain in the ass to administer but well worth it.

[The Joy]

Mod Note: Moved back to this forum from the Support Group forum.

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

why are the terms of administrators unlimited, unlike ArbCom membership? I believe having term limits would help reduce the burn-out rate which can contribute to bad behavior and faith of those with the power tools.

It varies from Wiki to Wiki. On some they have to be re-appointed annually. I expect the argument would be that you can't do it on WP because there would be three or four extra RfAs starting every day.

Most of the administrators are not a problem. If a large number of complaints are received about an administrator then that administrator should automatically have to go through an annual RfA.

All administrators should have to write one FA/year (or equivalent creative effort) to keep their buttons. This would be a royal pain in the ass to administer but well worth it.

One needs to question the motivations of an administrator who only wants to do administrative tasks.

Some of the power of administrators should be transferred to leaders of work groups. The leader of a work group could serve as a final arbitrator on article content disputes within the scope of his work group. I get annoyed by administrators who's expertise is in say comic books officiating articles in subjects they know nothing about.

[dogbiscuit]

One needs to question the motivations of an administrator who only wants to do administrative tasks.

Oh, I think it is far simpler: one needs to question the motives of anyone who volunteers for a thankless task.

However, I am more than comfortable with admins only admins.

Being a computer person, it is obligatory to talk in analogies, and my analogy is why do people insist on promoting programmers into being managers on the basis of being good programmers? My original career path was entirely based on being good at one thing qualified me to take on an entirely different task - I would claim it to be one of the classic British diseases of the 80s and 90s (and suspect it still to be the case today).

There are clearly many different roles in writing Wikipedia: big on framework, useless at detail; the copyeditor; the formatter; the moderator, conflict resolutionist, if you like; the policeman; the guy on the help desk; the second line support help desk who knows what he is talking about; the techie who can resolve issues with the engine from a writer's perspective. The traditional editor who does not write but knows what he wants written - a project manager.

One of the daft things about Wikipedia is that it pretends that there is one role: the editor, and it pretends that an admin is an editor who can do a few more editing tasks. Sanger's version at least recognises that there are some different tasks with different skills.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Being a computer person, it is obligatory to talk in analogies, and my analogy is why do people insist on promoting programmers into being managers on the basis of being good programmers? My original career path was entirely based on being good at one thing qualified me to take on an entirely different task - I would claim it to be one of the classic British diseases of the 80s and 90s (and suspect it still to be the case today).

On the other hand, programmers tend to be dismissive of managers who can't write a line of code. Pointy-haired, and all that. You have to wonder why the labourers over at wikipedia don't revolt against "janitors" who don't demonstrate much ability to write a line of an article.

If they were real editors, with a professional imperative to get it right...now that'd be different...

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

A problem with Wikipedia is it pretends there is no hierarchy, and the typical editor is totally opposed to the creation of any hierarchy. But in reality, there does exist a hierarchy and those who have assumed senior positions in the hierarchy typically have no expertise with the construction of an encyclopaedia, no expertise as an editor in the real world, or even any real expertise in the areas in which they edit. Wikipedia needs to grow up and have a formal hierarchy. The way any rational organization would go about creating the hierarchy would be through a hierarchy of subject area experts. This hierarchy can be democratically elected and does not need to be imposed. Wikipedia editors are capable of recognizing experts within the areas in which they edit.

[Moulton]

The real problem is that it's also easy to recognize the non-experts, but not so easy to figure out what to do with them.

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

The real problem is that it's also easy to recognize the non-experts, but not so easy to figure out what to do with them.

That is because Wikipedia does not have a method of resolving disputes over content. For Wikipedia to resolve content disputes it would have to recognize some editors as subject area experts. Wikipedia instead resolves disputes based upon editor behaviour. Since disputes are resolved based upon behaviour and not content it enables non experts to obtain the senior positions in the hierarchy.

[Moulton]

And in this case 'editor behavior' amounts to Wiki gamesmanship vis-a-vis the hodgepodge of WP:RULES and the insidious Spammish Inquisition known as the RfC.

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

And in this case 'editor behavior' amounts to Wiki gamesmanship vis-a-vis the hodgepodge of WP:RULES and the insidious Spammish Inquisition known as the RfC.

Yes. Gamesmanship would be irrelevant, the expert(s) would make a decision on who's viewpoint is correct. If the expert(s) do not know who's viewpoint is correct then both viewpoints deserve equal billing. RFC's attract people who know nothing about the article's subject matter. They can only declare a winner of the dispute based on editor behaviour and whether or not Wikipedia polices were followed.


This post has been edited by ThurstonHowell3rd: Wed 9th April 2008, 2:59am

[groody]

I would think the more important goals should be, making desysoping much, much easier (including temporary desysoping, like a block) - look at JzG, for example, you've some sixty people asking him to turn in the tools, but it makes no difference - and hindering administrators from operating as a class, say, by prohibiting administrators from voting on RfAs or desysoppings, prohibiting administrators from also being arbitrators, mediators or checkusers, etc.,

I agree with all of the above

and most of all, putting an end to the admins IRC.

What would that solve? Presumably there is significant collusion happening there, but removing the channel would make it all completely undercover, with no chance of *any* whistleblowing, as it were. If a group of admins are acting in concert, there's nothing to stop them doing so through completely backchannel means, after all...

f