Sysop power structure - Revision history

142.177.99.10: when it becomes a command hierarchy it is no longer accountable to "civilians" i.e. users

2004-09-06T17:40:12Z

when it becomes a command hierarchy it is no longer accountable to "civilians" i.e. users

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 6 September 2004
Line 13:		Line 13:
	1. at the very least, sysops should/must be required to spend one-third of their time with no sysop status at all - this ensures that they must ask others for help at least some of the time, and, have some experience of end user status		1. at the very least, sysops should/must be required to spend one-third of their time with no sysop status at all - this ensures that they must ask others for help at least some of the time, and, have some experience of end user status

	2. arrangements where sysops do what "off-duty" sysops ask without question, must be detected and discouraged - say by permanent loss of status for both - it must be clear that everything done by any sysop is done on their own best judgement - any "just following orders" or "just doing as asked" excuses are contrary to a [[rule of law]].		2. arrangements where sysops do what "off-duty" sysops ask without question, must be detected and discouraged - say by permanent loss of status for both - it must be clear that everything done by any sysop is done on their own best judgement - any "just following orders" or "just doing as asked" excuses are contrary to a [[rule of law]] - becoming a simple unaccountable and permanent [[command hierarchy]] - more akin to a military or [[priestly hierarchy]] than a civilian-controlled police structure.

	3. EVERY [[revert]] or [[block IP]] action must ''cost'' something - there must be a finite pool of "credit" that a sysop ''uses up'' by taking these actions, and it must be ''depleted'' if the action is ultimately reversed and reversal stands. This is how judges are judged - by how likely their verdicts are to be reversed on appeal. This will discourage [[sysop vandalism]] extremely strongly and probably such a system could and should be extended to all users.		3. EVERY [[revert]] or [[block IP]] action must ''cost'' something - there must be a finite pool of "credit" that a sysop ''uses up'' by taking these actions, and it must be ''depleted'' if the action is ultimately reversed and reversal stands. This is how judges are judged - by how likely their verdicts are to be reversed on appeal. This will discourage [[sysop vandalism]] extremely strongly and probably such a system could and should be extended to all users.

142.177.99.10 at 17:33, 6 September 2004

2004-09-06T17:33:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 6 September 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]". Those who [[unequal power relationship\|lack the technologically granted powers]] will often adopt the label "[[troll]]" as a mark of pride and create [[faction]]s to oppose the power structure. This ~~may be considered to be~~ [[politics as usual]].		A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]". Those who [[unequal power relationship\|lack the technologically granted powers]] will often adopt the label "[[troll]]" as a mark of pride and create [[faction]]s to oppose the trivial [[power structure]] that seeks to [[block IP]]s of their fellows. This is [[politics as usual]] - no different in wikis than elsewhere.

	As with cops, any view of any '''sysop power structure''' is necessarily quite controversial: those within it see themselves as "doing their job" to make a [[wiki mission]] happen. Those outside it see them necessarily more critically:		As with cops, any view of any '''sysop power structure''' is necessarily quite controversial: those within it see themselves as "doing their job" to make a [[wiki mission]] happen. Those outside it see them necessarily more critically:

142.177.99.10: clarifying good vs. evil in context of trolls vs. sysops, trollism view, ..Red Faction view

2004-09-06T17:28:22Z

clarifying good vs. evil in context of trolls vs. sysops, trollism view, ..Red Faction view

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 6 September 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]".		A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]". Those who [[unequal power relationship\|lack the technologically granted powers]] will often adopt the label "[[troll]]" as a mark of pride and create [[faction]]s to oppose the power structure. This may be considered to be [[politics as usual]].

	The [[social network]] composed of the sysops "is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear." - [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bird Wikipedia talk page], who goes on to suppose that the sysops are "practicing aggressive behaviors learned from their primarily middle class backgrounds, including [[hazing]], [[peer pressure]] and [[class-hatred]]." Accordingly once authority (such as a [[GodKing]] is identified, all forms of hate and abuse that are not specifically prevented by that authority will be accepted. The [[power network]] that results is an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, which can be altered only by [[wiki regime change]] ''which is indeed the goal of the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]].''		As with cops, any view of any '''sysop power structure''' is necessarily quite controversial: those within it see themselves as "doing their job" to make a [[wiki mission]] happen. Those outside it see them necessarily more critically:

			:[[Trollism]] defines the '''evil trolls''' as the sysops themselves, while those who admit they are trolls are somehow [[Good Thing\|good]] or at least "better" for the admission. More moderate positions are that a sysop is merely a form of troll, the least eloquent, most prone to using technology to bully someone else, and unworthy of inclusion in serious [[troll organization]]s.

			:The [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] viewed the [[social network]] composed of the sysops "is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear." - [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bird Wikipedia talk page], who goes on to suppose that the sysops are "practicing aggressive behaviors learned from their primarily middle class backgrounds, including [[hazing]], [[peer pressure]] and [[class-hatred]]." Accordingly once authority (such as a [[GodKing]] is identified, all forms of hate and abuse that are not specifically prevented by that authority will be accepted. The [[power network]] that results is an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, which can be altered only by [[wiki regime change]] ''which is indeed the goal of the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]].''

	If there is a good '''sysop power structure''', and it is not clear that there is, it certainly it must compensate for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become.		If there is a good '''sysop power structure''', and it is not clear that there is, it certainly it must compensate for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become.

Support a unified GFDL Corpus at 12:51, 15 August 2004

2004-08-15T12:51:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:51, 15 August 2004
Line 18:		Line 18:

	7. The [[Lowest Troll]] terminology is to be preferred to any that elevates or seems to worship the final-resort sysop (the term [[GodKing]], like "[[politically correct]]", seems to provide a kind of authority to the stupid, even though it was originally intended to mock the level of power or pressure involved).		7. The [[Lowest Troll]] terminology is to be preferred to any that elevates or seems to worship the final-resort sysop (the term [[GodKing]], like "[[politically correct]]", seems to provide a kind of authority to the stupid, even though it was originally intended to mock the level of power or pressure involved).

			== Alternative position ==

			On some wikis, the term [[sysops]] is equivalent to [[power structure]]. This is because the sysops manage (control) the wiki. On Consumerium, the [[sysops]] will be limited to [[cleaning]] duties, such as defending against [[vandalism]]. Hence, on Consumerium, it is hoped that [[sysops]] will not be a [[power structure]]. This will require [[eternal vigiliance]] and [[permanent revolution]] on behalf of the user base, and if a [[power structure]] begins to emerge, the users will take their content and move elsewhere.

142.177.92.38 at 18:11, 29 May 2004

2004-05-29T18:11:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 29 May 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]". The [[social network]] composed of the sysops "is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear." - [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bird Wikipedia talk page].		A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]".

	~~A good '''sysop~~ power ~~structure'''~~ is ~~not such~~ an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, ~~but compensates~~ for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become.		The [[social network]] composed of the sysops "is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear." - [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bird Wikipedia talk page], who goes on to suppose that the sysops are "practicing aggressive behaviors learned from their primarily middle class backgrounds, including [[hazing]], [[peer pressure]] and [[class-hatred]]." Accordingly once authority (such as a [[GodKing]] is identified, all forms of hate and abuse that are not specifically prevented by that authority will be accepted. The [[power network]] that results is an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, which can be altered only by [[wiki regime change]] ''which is indeed the goal of the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]].''

			If there is a good '''sysop power structure''', and it is not clear that there is, it certainly it must compensate for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become.

	In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:		In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:
Line 14:		Line 16:

	5. Also if one's own edits are involved, one cannot be assumed to be neutral or personally uninvolved. Every police or court system has [[rules]] to prevent such [[conflict of interest]].		5. Also if one's own edits are involved, one cannot be assumed to be neutral or personally uninvolved. Every police or court system has [[rules]] to prevent such [[conflict of interest]].

			7. The [[Lowest Troll]] terminology is to be preferred to any that elevates or seems to worship the final-resort sysop (the term [[GodKing]], like "[[politically correct]]", seems to provide a kind of authority to the stupid, even though it was originally intended to mock the level of power or pressure involved).

142.177.92.38: unthinking, reactive, stupid

2004-05-29T18:06:46Z

unthinking, reactive, stupid

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 29 May 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A good '''sysop power structure''' is not an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, but compensates for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become.		A [[sysop]] is someone capable of employing [[technological escalation]] against their enemies, who they typically label "[[trolls]]". The [[social network]] composed of the sysops "is an immature network that easily develops frightened, unlearned reactions then attempts to explain those reactions as having been caused by the object of its fear." - [[English Wikipedia User Bird]] on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bird Wikipedia talk page].

			A good '''sysop power structure''' is not such an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, but compensates for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become.

	In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:		In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:

142.177.75.109: revert vandalism; Consumerium will have a sysop power structure, and it must debate that structure based on bad examples, specific proposals, and etc.

2004-01-16T22:08:38Z

revert vandalism; Consumerium will have a sysop power structure, and it must debate that structure based on bad examples, specific proposals, and etc.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:08, 16 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~#REDIRECT~~ [[~~Off~~-~~topic~~]]		A good '''sysop power structure''' is not an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, but compensates for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become.

			In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:

			1. at the very least, sysops should/must be required to spend one-third of their time with no sysop status at all - this ensures that they must ask others for help at least some of the time, and, have some experience of end user status

			2. arrangements where sysops do what "off-duty" sysops ask without question, must be detected and discouraged - say by permanent loss of status for both - it must be clear that everything done by any sysop is done on their own best judgement - any "just following orders" or "just doing as asked" excuses are contrary to a [[rule of law]].

			3. EVERY [[revert]] or [[block IP]] action must ''cost'' something - there must be a finite pool of "credit" that a sysop ''uses up'' by taking these actions, and it must be ''depleted'' if the action is ultimately reversed and reversal stands. This is how judges are judged - by how likely their verdicts are to be reversed on appeal. This will discourage [[sysop vandalism]] extremely strongly and probably such a system could and should be extended to all users.

			4. [[Faction]] declarations and agreement not to intervene in a [[political dispute]] involving an overtly opposed faction would be quite important - for example, if someone is anti-homosexual, they should not be counted on to serve as a neutral broker in a debate between an anti-homosexual and a homosexual. A [[conflict of values]] can only cause the final decision to be very disputable.

			5. Also if one's own edits are involved, one cannot be assumed to be neutral or personally uninvolved. Every police or court system has [[rules]] to prevent such [[conflict of interest]].

Tin Filo: ot

2004-01-15T06:21:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:21, 15 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~A good '''sysop power structure''' is not an unthinking copy of the~~ [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, but compensates for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become.		#REDIRECT [[Off-topic]]

	~~In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:~~

	1. at the very least, sysops should/must be required to spend one-third of their time with no sysop status at all - this ensures that they must ask others for help at least some of the time, and, have some experience of end user status

	2. arrangements where sysops do what "off-duty" sysops ask without question, must be detected and discouraged - say by permanent loss of status for both - it must be clear that everything done by any sysop is done on their own best judgement - any "just following orders" or "just doing as asked" excuses are contrary to a [[rule of law]].

	3. EVERY [[revert]] or [[block IP]] action must ''cost'' something - there must be a finite pool of "credit" that a sysop ''uses up'' by taking these actions, and it must be ''depleted'' if the action is ultimately reversed and reversal stands. This is how judges are judged - ~~by how likely their verdicts are to be reversed on appeal. This will discourage [[sysop vandalism]] extremely strongly and probably such a system could and should be extended to all users.~~

	4. [[Faction]] declarations and agreement not to intervene in a [[political dispute]] involving an overtly opposed faction would be quite important - for example, if someone is anti-homosexual, they should not be counted on to serve as a neutral broker in a debate between an anti-homosexual and a homosexual. A [[conflict of values]] can only cause the final decision to be very disputable.

	~~5. Also if one's own edits are involved, one cannot be assumed to be neutral or personally uninvolved. Every police or court system has [[rules]] to prevent such [[conflict of interest~~]].

142.177.106.159: some recommendations for eliminating the problems caused by "Angelas"

2003-12-22T03:53:26Z

some recommendations for eliminating the problems caused by "Angelas"

New page

A good '''sysop power structure''' is not an unthinking copy of the [[power structure]] of the project as a whole, but compensates for the [[community point of view]] sysops tend to acquire. For the same reasons, police officers must follow formal rules about what cases to be involved in and not, and are not generally trusted to follow their own instincts about what measures to take against "offenders" of [[rules]]. This is no different on [[large public wiki]]s such as the [[Content Wiki]] and any [[Opinion Wiki]] facilities will become.

In other words, sysops simply can't be treated as neutral brokers in ''any'' power structure, democratic or despotic. They ''always'' add their own views, and this must be compensated for:

1. at the very least, sysops should/must be required to spend one-third of their time with no sysop status at all - this ensures that they must ask others for help at least some of the time, and, have some experience of end user status

2. arrangements where sysops do what "off-duty" sysops ask without question, must be detected and discouraged - say by permanent loss of status for both - it must be clear that everything done by any sysop is done on their own best judgement - any "just following orders" or "just doing as asked" excuses are contrary to a [[rule of law]].

3. EVERY [[revert]] or [[block IP]] action must ''cost'' something - there must be a finite pool of "credit" that a sysop ''uses up'' by taking these actions, and it must be ''depleted'' if the action is ultimately reversed and reversal stands. This is how judges are judged - by how likely their verdicts are to be reversed on appeal. This will discourage [[sysop vandalism]] extremely strongly and probably such a system could and should be extended to all users.

4. [[Faction]] declarations and agreement not to intervene in a [[political dispute]] involving an overtly opposed faction would be quite important - for example, if someone is anti-homosexual, they should not be counted on to serve as a neutral broker in a debate between an anti-homosexual and a homosexual. A [[conflict of values]] can only cause the final decision to be very disputable.

5. Also if one's own edits are involved, one cannot be assumed to be neutral or personally uninvolved. Every police or court system has [[rules]] to prevent such [[conflict of interest]].