Category talk:Eguor admins/Archive 1

Hrrmmm ...

I'm not sure if this is a good idea. Certainly, it doesn't seem helpful to have two opposite/warring factions of administrators. Probably, all such categories should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm with Cyde here. There's an implicit critique of "rougeness" which is not really needed, given that different people interpret that category very differently anyway. Also, the example about Jimbo is not so good--I recognize that it's intended to be a wittily absurd hyperbole, but in fact many of our disgruntled editors do end up pissed off with Jimbo sooner or later. Chick Bowen 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To dyslexics, this is a duplicate category. Perhaps, we should merge them ;). NoSeptember 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of rouge admins is that we are not rogue at all. It's about how frustrated POV pushers react to being thwarted, not about what we do. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...I also am in Category:Rouge admins. I think of this as complementary. Durova^Charge 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding factionalizing, I don't think this is any worse than the clusionist/elitionist/merryist/AWWBLAHBLAHOVERLYLONGACRONYMists and other stuff in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy. >Radiant< 11:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any userboxes and now that Esperanza's historical my only categories are admin categories. Admin categories communicate relevant information to editors who don't deal with admins very often. This one in particular would speak to the where can I get a fair hearing? wish for the occasional people who slip through the cracks. Durova^Charge 15:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of the thing

Readers who follow all the links in the category page will find, among the jokes, this rather serious exchange at User talk:Cwiki. I was flattened by a virus when it got floated on WP:AN and didn't manage to fish out the thread after things got resolved, although I certainly looked. This appears to be an Australian medical doctor who got swept up in the AWilliamson cleanup. It wasn't until the editor himself left an appeal at my talk page that I became aware of the problem. And from what I make of the user history he or she probably got fed up with Wikipedia last summer because Williamson was rampaging in his Joan of Arc vandal edit warring armor.

Another recent example might draw ire because of its associations, but over at User_talk:ATren#Final_Warning a bit of evenhanded civility prompted a strikethrough and an apology from two editors who had been on their way down a bad path. I've been dealing with other appeals through e-mail and while they're confidential I think I can mention that one of them is from the primary contributor to a good article who got sitebanned over a sophomoric joke.

Where can these sorts of potentially okay people turn? They'll get some very counterproductive advice at various attack sites. Basically I'm stepping forward to say I'll sift through some frivolous appeals for the ones that have potential since that's what I do anyway. I don't set out to act antagonistically - if I cross that line then follow my userpage link to Category:Administrators open to recall. You know what to do. For the kind of investigations I perform credibility matters more than the sysop tools. The tools are handy, but what really matters is I earn the participants' respect. Any other admin who wants to join up is welcome. Durova^Charge 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why is this "Eguor admins" and not "Eguor wikipedians"? As you point out the tools are not relevant to these actions, a credible non-admin should be just as effective. NoSeptember 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because editors who have problems single out sysops for accusations of cabalism. Some of those people go out of their way to persuade others that admins are power hungry cabalists. The example at ATren's talk page was a mild case and one that could be turned around. Here's another more pernicious example.[1] That dynamic is by no means exclusive to Wikipedia. One of the keys to maintaining a healthy website is to ensure that those beliefs don't reach critical mass. Otherwise volunteers burn out, sysops get frustrated and make more mistakes, and more Australian medical doctors get mistaken for long term vandals. Durova^Charge 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather the point. The whole "rouge admin" thing is a joke about precisely that: they accuse us of being a cabal, but we aren't. Or if we are, it's so secret that most of the supposed members don't know about it. I'd have unblocked Cwiki myself when I had tme to review it, but was beaten to the punch by someone with better knowledge of the Joan of Arc vandal. That had nothing to do with WP:ROUGE. Nothing at all. Rouge admin is a satire on the hysterical postings of "rouge admin abuse" made by webmasters of deleted websites, moderators of deleted forums and other assorted WP:COI-violating ne'er-do-wells. It's not about assuming bad faith, I have been robustly criticised for assuming good faith in the case of Brian Crawford. It's not about trigger-happy blocking, Calton is complaining about failure to block a load of Primetime socks right now. It's a satirical way of saying that assuming good faith applies to "victims" of admins as well, because we are only human and the pay is lousy. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the thing

...is pretty weird if you ask me (which, incidentally, you didn't, but still). I think a better name would be Gambit Admins, or possibly Noir Admins. Bonus points to anyone who can make a cute mispeling in those, or add a reference to some D&D class. >Radiant< 11:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paladin. Dwarven defender. Egad I'm a geek. Durova^Charge 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in, self-righteous avengers who vigorously fight those who disobey the law? :) >Radiant< 15:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it strays into self-righteousness it misses the mark. Bullseye would be an award I was delighted to receive the other day. Durova^Charge 16:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Firm but fair.png

The Firm but Fair award

For her insightful, no nonsense, 'no big production number' efforts to keep things civil on the Joyce Kilmer talk page, the Firm but Fair award is hereby awarded to Durova. -- Jreferee 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW cook up a better name if you feel so inclined. Durova^Charge 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a neat idea

Needs a flag though. The rouge flag is red. What color is eguor ? is it a similar color to ichor? More seriously, I'm desirous of joining because, really, I agree, these are complimentary philosophies. Both are subsets of Doing the Right Thing, after all. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, cyan. >Radiant< 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Join up, dress it up. We're a wiki. :) Durova^Charge 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should get User:Eequor to join. >Radiant< 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm in. What I think nifty about ROUGE though is that it's awarded by others. I'm not sure I agree cyan is the right color, that's opposite, not complimentary. Have to think. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could use a different coloring method and end up with green? >Radiant< 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me here

...is that none of the principles listed actually contradict the belief that WP:IAR is important and has its place on Wikipedia. Thus there's no reason one can't be a rouge admin and an eguor admin... except, of course, that the point of the category is to create an opposite. I don't like the factionalism here—Category:Rouge admins was always kind of a joke, but this category makes it serious. (And no, I don't think Durova somehow being in both makes the situation much better.) -- SCZenz 20:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, why should any of the principles contradict WP:IAR? Eguor says rougeness goes both ways, which extends to WP:IAR. I accept rougeness and I turn it on its ear. Have the humor of the George Carlin reference and the fake Sally Hemmings quote missed their mark? Durova^Charge 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that there's no humor; but it reads, to me, as a funny attack on Category:Rouge admins. Maybe that's not how it was intended, but that's how it looks. -- SCZenz 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would I help to dispel that impression? Durova^Charge! 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you start the page by contrasting it with rougeness, it might not hurt to also have a mention of how the ideas are compatible. Also, I'm concerned about statements like "another goal of an eguor admin is to serve as Wikipedia's loyal opposition should any cabal inadvertently form"—it seems to imply that you advocate opposing things solely on the grounds that many others agree with them. -- SCZenz 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on adding some Hegelian logic into the page where the proposition is basically:

Thesis: rouge admin
Antithesis: troll
Synthesis: eguor admin

Durova^Charge! 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that an equor combines traits of a rogue admin with those of a troll? Sounds hardly flattering... >Radiant< 16:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is that way of reading it... ;) Durova^Charge! 16:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to the matter of consensus/cabalism, how better would you express what this is really after? Opposition for opposition's sake would violate WP:POINT which I specifically disavow. Principled, reasoned, and thoughtful dissent - where principles actually exist for taking a stand - sometimes risks a bit of social disapproval. That's not game playing: it's integrity. It's also the core of WP:AGF. Durova^Charge! 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't understand what you're really after. You seem to be stating common-sense ideas, but putting them in (implied, humorous) opposition to other common-sense ideas. By all means, say that we should present our own views, politely, regardless of what others say—but why imply that the prevailing approach on Wikipedia is to do otherwise? -- SCZenz 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this analogy: every publishing house has a slush pile. It's the heap of unsolicited submissions which, for the most part, are absolute dreck. The art of dealing with the slush pile is to separate the unknown geniuses from the hacks - and every hack is absolutely convinced they're the next Hemingway. Different editors have varying tolerances for the slush pile but very few really attend to it. That is why Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, one of the bestselling books in publishing history, was rejected by 121 different firms. I volunteer to deal with Wikipedia's clingy, vain, nutty, and hopeless hacks in order to glean the Robert M. Pirsig or the mistakenly banned Australian medical doctor among them. By doing so I defuse the allegations that rougeness is just an excuse for rudeness, that administrators are a clubby little cabal that doesn't have a clue and never ever enforces the policies upon ourselves. If admins ever do fall into those traps by gosh I'll speak up against it. We ought to be the first to step forward when that happens - and since we're human beings once in a while it might. That earns credibility and credibility tips the balance for a lot of people who haven't decided whether to vandalize our site or edit it. One of the reasons I think this is needed is how swift some visitors have been to construe the endeavor in a bad light: if I have trouble getting this going - with my squeaky clean reputation - then we really need it. Durova^Charge! 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you explain seriously what you're doing, it all turns out to be stuff I agree with and try to do consistently: we should certainly be patient and lenient with people who are acting in good faith and correct problems, and we should certainly be unafraid to disagree politely with people who are doing the wrong thing. It's the way you set up this page that's a problem—as I said, I can't figure out what you're trying to say by reading the humorous part, but it does look like you're criticizing people who hold certain views. If you want to "defuse allegations," then act rightly and encourage others to do the same—instead, this page makes it look like you're embracing them. -- SCZenz 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I find is that people seek me out for the tough jobs - sometimes by e-mail after other recourses have failed - yet they do that basically because they already know my reputation. In practice not every admin wants to wade into those swamps. We need people on recent changes patrol and we need people to close deletion discussions and enforce WP:3RR. So where does someone go out of 1090 administrators without getting accused of forum shopping or admin shopping if the first couple of tries don't get the time of day? As I've stated before on this page, I'm open to recall. I double checked those parameters yesterday and noticed they had loosened so I updated User talk:Durova/Admin to specify that I voluntarily abide by the original six-users-in-good-standing terms for a reconfirmation vote. I specialize in tough investigations where problem users routinely accuse me of malfeasance: I invite them to appeal my blocks and open RFCs on me. No RFC has been forthcoming and every block appeal has failed. Instead I've garnered seven more barnstars and a few extra special awards since I got the tools. If what I'm doing at this category doesn't make intuitive sense to you then trust me and come back in a month. So far I have received heartfelt thanks offline from editors who are too shy to post here. I'll throw this up for deletion myself if it causes problems. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have ignored what I said, and instead given me a speech about how great you are—has it occured to you that some of us are patient and helpful without advertizing it, creating categories about ourselves, or collecting barnstars? Although you didn't intend it to be so I'm sure, I find your attitude here a bit insulting: from what I can tell, you seem to be assuming that I "don't get it" rather than explaining it to me. -- SCZenz 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary outdent) Sorry to be slow about replying. Things got busy in other areas and I've run into hardware problems with my computer. I certainly don't mean to insult anyone by starting this. My intention is quite the opposite. Yet I'm at a loss for how to address your specific misgivings. The category page already states that eguor is complementary rather than oppositional with rouge and that it isn't about disruption. So I'll try another tack. A few weeks back when I gave JzG a civility warning I posted to WP:AN right away to see whether I'd handled that properly. At the time when I acted I anticipated at worst a few dry procedural responses that would point to precedents I hadn't known about and change my mind. Instead it became clear that I'd stumbled onto a very hot button issue. Guy wasn't offended by my action but some other editors were - yet another set of editors applauded me for being bold. I certainly hadn't intended to set off a firestorm and if I saw the same circumstances today I'd handle it differently, yet it became the first of several events that made me think I had my finger on the pulse of something. I looked for a way to express this without rubbing people the wrong way. If my explanation comes across as self-promotional I apologize because that's the furthest thing from my intent. All I ask is that you give this a little time and good faith.

It's tough to respond to criticisms that (from my perspective) seem to miss the mark. If someone tells me X looks bad and I've really done Y - I can give my best shot at explaining Y in greater detail - but if they return with X looks bad and your reply looks like Z. That's bad too. Well, I haven't really gotten feedback on Y. Please trust me that Y is Y even if that isn't crystal clear. I'll do my best to put your feedback into expressing Y in better terms. Durova^Charge! 00:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 100% certain this is worth arguing over, but let's give it another go. Let's take a very narrow issue, and see if we can get on the same page on that at least. Just now, you wrote:

"The category page already states that eguor is complementary rather than oppositional with rouge and that it isn't about disruption"

However, the only mention of "rouge" that appears on the category page is:

"Eguor is rouge spelled backwards. Where rouge administrators hail Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, eguor administrators think rougeness goes both ways."

In other words, your only explicit comparison to being a "rouge admin" is to contrast; you imply, with that first sentence, that being in this category means you do not think much of WP:IAR, and you never say anything to contradict that later. What you believe you're saying on the category page simply isn't what it says—or have I missed something? -- SCZenz 02:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way... You've written many words about what you mean by the category here on the talk page; I don't think those ideas come across well on the category page, and I would encourage you to revise it for clarity. -- SCZenz 02:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm chewing my cud rather slowly on this, but yes I've paid attention. Durova^Charge! 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins? lol

Not sure the opposition should be admins, indeed there perhaps a eugor category for users would be better. Until recently User:Adam Carr claimed to be leader of the opposition on the basis that he was a high level contributor who wasnt an admin and I think any effort to limit the wikipedia opposition only to admins is not an idea that is likely to be taken seriously, and certainly should be strongly opposed, SqueakBox 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and move the category name then. Durova^Charge! 04:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eguor editors

I have been created a category for editors who also agree with these principles. Anynobody 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bravo

The militant mentality of many administrators, thinking of themselves as defenders of the wiki against trolls and vandals, only worthy of contempt and blocks, is completely contrary to the fundamental principle of good faith. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be perfectly candid, it doesn't seem to me that many administrators have that sort of mentality. We're volunteers who've put a lot of unpaid labor into helping the site. Once in a while we get frustrated because we spend so much time mopping up. I do hope that non-sysops view this category as an act of good faith: without casting aspersions on anybody, I pledge to give a fair hearing to people who can present a good case. So far the situations I've corrected have been simple this-guy-slipped-through-the-cracks things. But by golly, if a cabal ever does form I don't want to be in it. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]