[WikiEN-l] Rogue Admin Syndrome

Tue May 31 20:23:25 UTC 2005

>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 03:51:37 +0100
> From: "A Nony Mouse" <tempforcomments at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <BAY18-F208BD9D4BEDD1DD4C87D44B8040 at 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.