User talk:Scjessey/Election Discussion

From DreamHost

I would like to hear some ideas from folks about how we might go about putting together some sort of committee to provide wiki oversight. Since the early days, I have been performing most of the sysop duties. Initially, we had input from Nate Daiger (who has since left DreamHost for pastures new) and a handful of others (particularly during the moving of the original Knowledge Base). More recently, DH assistance has come in the form of Sabrejack. Here is my current thinking of how this might be done:

6 elected members that each have sysop privileges for a 1 year period.
Candidates should have at least 6 months of meaningful contributions on the user name they choose to run with.
Candidates should have a "campaign page" (a sub-page of their user page) that states why they believe they would make a good sysop.
Electorate may only vote with a single user name.
Electorate may have 6 votes each, but no more than 1 vote per candidate.
Nominees for candidacy will be accepted for (? weeks). A nominee agrees to become a candidate by creating the "campaign page".
After 1 year term, candidate must agree to give up sysop privileges unless immediately re-elected.

These are just ideas, and nothing has been agreed by DreamHost yet. If you would like to contribute to this discussion, please comment on this special talk page. -- Scjessey 08:07, 30 Nov 2006 (PST)

Comments

6 months is a rather long time, don't you think? There isn't really anybody who's presently active who's been editing for six months. (Well, technically, I made my first edits in July, but I made no edits between then and the start of October.)

It might be worthwhile to compare your proposal with the way other wikis handle things. Your proposal happens to be quite similar to the Board of Trustees elections for the Wikimedia Foundation. I know you're not a scholar of Wikipedic lore, so that's probably coincidental. Still, it's worth noting. However, given the nature of wiki administration, it might make more sense to emulate the model of the English Wikipedia, since the Board of Trustees is altogether separate from Wikipedia's management. Wikipedia appoints its administrators through processes known as requests for adminship, or RfAs. They are events of a different sort, where users are not deciding between candidates, but are instead determining whether a particular nominated user should be made an administrator.

I'm not saying that's the best method for this wiki, of course: For one thing, this wiki is far, far smaller, and has a far smaller user base. Any sort of election or nomination process would need to keep that in mind. --Emufarmers 10:43, 30 Nov 2006 (PST)

You might be right about the 6 months thing. I definitely think that candidates should have a certain level of patronage before they should be considered for the "committee" (I hate that term. Anything better?). I'd like to see some sort of election process that is very simple, and doesn't rely on more than one round of voting. Keep adding ideas, and then we can cherry-pick from the ideas we think will work here. The main thing is that we manage something credible, or else DreamHost will probably just ignore it. -- Scjessey 11:03, 30 Nov 2006 (PST)

I propose there be only 3 electorates for a wiki our relatively small size. I'm concerned that finding six (truly) motivated sysops may be beyond our reach at the moment. --Sabrejack 15:46, 30 Nov 2006 (PST)

I agree that only 3 (more would be better, if more could be found - maybe 4?) is more likely to be a realistic expectation, and propose that these dedicated souls be rewarded for their commitment, and encouraged in their undertaking, by having updated wiki software with which to work ;-) - Rlparker 15:55, 30 Nov 2006 (PST)

I support an odd number for committee members because it makes tie votes less likely (impossible except in case of absences). 5 or 7 would be nice, but I agree 3 is a good number to shoot for initially. In the event an abundance of (good) nominees appears, it could be increased.

I agree the 6 month wiki participation criteria should be loosened/expanded, or deleted. Participation in the DreamHost Forum should also be considered. Unless an abundance of nominees appears, a criteria to cull nominees based on a time limit, numbers of posts or edits, or similar, is probably not necessary, and should be deleted, at least initially. Nominators can make their cases for why their candidate is “worthy,” and voters can decide.

I suggest a limiting the number of nominations allowed per person, to a maximum of 3. Yes, I chose the word “person” not “user” to be precise. No, I do not plan to nominate me myself and I. -- 0-0 20:44, 30 Nov 2006 (PST)

"Participation in the DreamHost Forum should also be considered." -- I actually agree with that because of how much longer the forum has been around. I'd just hope that the connection would be verified by contacting the person through the forum to be sure it's really the same person. --Mjsfl 21:00, 30 Nov 2006 (PST)

3 candidates

I agree with everything said here so far. Shooting for 3 peeps sounds like a good idea. I realize my initial thoughts were probably a little ambitious after some reflection. Naturally, with only 3 potential "committee members", it only makes sense to give folks 3 votes. Also, having an odd number means that (in the event of a deadlocked decision) there will be no need to call for a DH-employee casting vote. With the reduced number of members, the 6-month (or whatever) participation idea is probably pointless, as 0-0 suggested. One would hope that the merits of any particular candidate were obvious, since the wiki is so transparent. -- Scjessey 06:19, 1 Dec 2006 (PST)

Policies and Guidelines

I would like to further suggest that the policies and guidelines are approved/ratified/whatever by the 3 committee members during the first term, rather than by DreamHost employees. Ultimately, DreamHost will have the right to veto any decision made by the committee anyway. Obviously, these policies and guidelines can be developed by the committee in the future as needed. -- Scjessey 06:19, 1 Dec 2006 (PST)

Questions

How long should a "term" be? I suggested 1 year initially - much shorter than the Wikipedia term of 3 years.
What should we do in the event of a tie in the voting?
Should we require that candidates and/or voters have actual hosting accounts with DreamHost? Some have domains only, I understand.
Will candidates/nominees/whatever be able to vote?
Does anyone have any good ideas for what this "committee" should be called? I can't say the word without thinking of Queen Amidala in The Phantom Menace.

-- Scjessey 06:19, 1 Dec 2006 (PST)

Don't everyone shout at once! -- Scjessey 09:55, 3 Dec 2006 (PST)

Answers/Comments

1 year terms: Sounds fine.
Ties in voting: Accept all onto committee (assuming not a ridiculously high number).
Having accounts: It's too difficult to police or verify. If somebody is willing to serve and there is a basis to expect “good things(tm)”, then welcome them.
Voting by nominees: Sure, why not. 1 person 1 vote; or 3.

Accounts vote multiplier (semi-serious): Perhaps number of votes per customer should be based on a sort of “shares” in the company. We could multiply each customer's base number of votes (3) by their Plan Level (1 to 4). And then multiply by their number of referrals, times half the number of secondary referrals. Each voter's correct number of votes to be verified by Mjsfl, who will also do background checks on all nominees and match wiki Ids with Forum IDs.

Committee name ideas: The odd bunch, the odd crew, the odd order, or the odd number.

General comment: If we're not careful, we could make this more complicated than needed. Another reasonable criteria might be interest as shown here. So far we've seen comments from 5 folks (non-DH). That might make a good odd number for committee, and we could say the criteria was the first 5 to express interest. -- 0-0 10:43, 3 Dec 2006 (PST)

"So far we've seen comments from 5 folks"

Once we have figured out how this is going to work by consensus, I was thinking of "publicizing" the vote on the Discussion Forum in the hope of getting more attention. This is all assuming that DreamHost actually agrees to the idea in the first place, of course. After thinking about it, I'm certain that there should be exactly 3 members (excluding DH folks) in the group, although I see no reason why we can't have a sort of Members Emeriti who retain their sysop status, much like the Wikipedia trustees. How do DreamHost Wiki Customer Council or DreamHost Wiki Customer Conclave (abbr DWCC) sound? -- Scjessey 12:29, 3 Dec 2006 (PST)

Once we have figured out how this is going to work by consensus,

We could try simply picking 3 people by consensus.

I was thinking of "publicizing" the vote on the Discussion Forum in the hope of getting more attention.

Disagree. Voters should have been “registered wiki citizens” before November 1 or so, with an exception for Forum participants nominated by citizens to be candidates.

Who actually wants to be on this committee anyway? Show of hands? -- 0-0 15:32, 3 Dec 2006 (PST)

I'm still not sure if the Board model is the one we should be emulating. What's wrong with the traditional RfA? --Emufarmers 16:18, 3 Dec 2006 (PST)

Actually, I too would like to see some discussion as to why the "board" model is more desirable than using an RfA approach, particularly since there have so few participating in this discussion. It might be a lot easier to "vet" those seeking Admin status under such a system than it would be to recruit, "vote", and "select" a "board", "committee", or "cabal" to perform these functions. And I *still* think an important part of *all this* is to get the wiki software updated ;-) Rlparker 18:55, 4 Dec 2006 (PST)

There are a couple of reasons why I thought that the RfA (Request for Adminship, for those that don't know) model might be a problem. First of all, there are obviously some users who do not approve of my sysop status, and so I wanted to give everyone a chance to have their say on that particular score (which may have culminated on the removal of that status). Secondly, the RfA approach has not worked thus far: I have requested sysop status for other users (I won't say who or how many) with a negative response (I won't say why). Finally, a sysop does not have the "right" to make other sysops, so we would have to rely on DH employees to do this. Traditionally, we've had a lot of trouble getting their attention, if you know what I mean (upgrade version please!).

With all that said, I'm more interested in getting at least two more sysops (or 3, if I am to be ousted) so that "burdens of command" can be shared a bit. The actual process is less important to me. -- Scjessey 04:49, 5 Dec 2006 (PST)

I see your points, Simon, and understand better now why the RfA process might not work well here. Certainly, if the granting of Adminship requires DH employees to be involved, getting admin status granted might be problematic. A "board" would also help to "take the target off your back" a bit ;-). Obviously more sysops are needed, and if a "board" is the best/easiest way to get the requisite DH buy-in for that, then I'm all in favor of doing it that way. Rlparker 05:05, 5 Dec 2006 (PST)

“some users who do not approve of my sysop status,”

Wouldn't that be more like a RFI, RFD or RFU (request for: impeachment, demotion or user-only)? :-) I've assumed you would most likely stay “in office”, whether by DreamHost declaration, voting, or interested users' consensus. I'm not aware of calls for resignation or impeachment; only for some adjustments.

“Secondly, the RfA approach has not worked thus far: I have requested sysop status for other users (I won't say who or how many) with a negative response (I won't say why).”

That sounds like a different, “behind the scenes RfA” approach, without open and transparent discussion. So much for this wiki being “so transparent”? I can understand not saying who, but how many and why could be useful information.

"board" would also help to "take the target off your back"

That's a good way of putting it. I think it could also help encourage some more transparency about the purposes, policies and guidelines for this wiki. -- 0-0 10:02, 5 Dec 2006 (PST)

"I can understand not saying who, but how many and why could be useful information."

I guess that is a fair point. I have made three requests in total. The first request was for "help" in general, and that was almost a year ago. The second and third requests happened more recently. The first was rejected because I was told that DH did not want any additional sysops (no further explanation was given), and the second was rejected because of a perceived "lack of experience". -- Scjessey 10:34, 5 Dec 2006 (PST)

DH has to be involved, at least minimally, whatever way we choose. Why not have DH appoint a bureaucrat so that he can handle the promotions from RfAs? The behind-the-scenes efforts you made on behalf of me and others were laudable for the purposes of trying to get some active management of the wiki going, but they were indeed not open and transparent. But an RfA approach seems perfectly logical: DH leaves it to the community to deal with RfAs, appoints you (or another community member) as bureaucrat for the administrative purpose of promoting users in the event of a successful RfA, and retains a veto in any event. If DH isn't willing to take that logical step, or anything resembling it, then there's no reason that I—or any of you, for that matter—should be here trying to sort out this mess of a wiki against DH's will. We're volunteers. We shouldn't bend over backwards here, particularly when DH has displayed so little interest in the wiki that they refuse to even keep it up-to-date. SysOp status is not a privilege, here: It is a tool. The same goes for bureaucrat status. If DH doesn't recognize what those tools are for, can't devote any manpower to learning, and won't let volunteers do it for them, then there's nothing more that can be done. --Emufarmers 19:42, 5 Dec 2006 (PST)

What Emufarmers has said makes a lot of sense to me. It does seem that DreamHost expects much from the wiki, yet the company doesn't invest much in the way of time and effort. Almost everything is left up to us, although Sabrejack pitches in with the admin stuff from time to time. So essentially, we have a new proposal:

New Proposal

Get DreamHost to give Scjessey the status of bureaucrat, or someone else sufficiently wiki-active.
The bureaucrat confers sysop status on the basis of RfA and subsequent consensus.
The bureaucrat and initial group of sysops flesh-out the policies and guidelines, and begin "enforcing" the former.
DreamHost has ultimate veto over anything.

What does everyone think? I'd particularly like Sabrejack to weigh in on this. -- Scjessey 05:25, 6 Dec 2006 (PST)

New Bureaucrat: Opposed. Unnecessary. There are plenty already. Non-DH people should apply less “power” not more. More work is needed on fixing and adding things, not controlling or forcing thing to go a particular way. If DreamHost is taking a mostly hands-off approach, then the most active sysop should emulate that, except in cases of blatant robot spam, revert wars, and such. If additional sysops are needed or desired, perhaps they should simply submit requests with supporting info' to someone like Sabrejack, but I'm not sure more sysops are really needed. I support using less “forcing” actions, not more.

I propose the following: Current non-DH sysop should agree to only ban users or delete or protect pages, which someone is trying to work on, after unanimous agreement by the odd group of 3 or 5; extremely obvious spam and “willy” type defacement (by non-communicating robots/persons) being excepted. The odd group of 3 or 5 can be a volunteer group of users with relatively long histories here, and it need not be a “big deal” to get on it - They agree to participate when called upon, and the sysop agrees to comply. I agree with “fleshing out” policies and guidelines, without spending too much time on it. It need not require sysop or bureaucrat status to be involved. “Enforcing” was in quotes, but in general the emphasis should be on more honey and less vinegar. -- 0-0 07:59, 7 Dec 2006 (PST)

I cannot say I'm all that surprised at your response, but it is valid nonetheless. I said that we needed a non-DH bureaucrat because it appears that DreamHost employees would rather leave everything up to us, and we need someone who can actually make users into sysops. I think this is why Emufarmers suggested it before. One other thing that I wanted was the ability to semi-protect articles - I'm not sure how to go about this, but I understand that a sysop cannot set this (requires administrator or higher).

"Current non-DH sysop should agree to only ban users or delete or protect pages, which someone is trying to work on, after unanimous agreement by the odd group of 3 or 5"

I think that this is a matter of policy. If the "group of sysops" decide that this is the way to go, that is fine with me. My concern right now is trying to actually get some more sysops in the first place. -- Scjessey 08:21, 7 Dec 2006 (PST)

Just to make sure my opinion is as clear as possible: It is not necessary for the "odd group" to all be sysops. There are some advantages to that, but it is not necessary in order to get started. --0-0 08:54, 7 Dec 2006 (PST)

But the whole point of this is to create a mechanism for oversight better than the one we have now. It's not just about stopping spammers and vandals, but also helping to shape the wiki into something that offers the ultimate resource for the DreamHost customer. I'm hoping that the wiki will become the first port of call for help, rather than the second or third (after the forum and support). Without some sort of rough plan for this (like the Wikipedia had from its earliest days), this will be difficult to achieve. -- Scjessey 09:17, 7 Dec 2006 (PST)

As far as semi-protection goes, the basic functionality is included with the protection feature: On the "protect" tab, select "Block unregistered users." Unregistered users are already denied editing access to this wiki, however: I did some asking around the MediaWiki playhouse, and getting it like on Wikipedia, with semiprotection requiring that accounts be 4 days (or any other length of time) old would be possible, but it takes a few tweaks. But that's moot, because the variables necessary to set it up properly probably aren't in 1.4.0, and if DH can't devote the energy necessary to upgrade the wiki software, there isn't a chance in hell they're going to implement a tweak/hack.

I suppose that longwinded response might illustrate another point: This wiki has a severe shortage of people who know how MediaWiki works. That's not intended as an attack on anybody here: It's simply that I seem to be the most MW-knowledgeable user on this wiki, DH or non-DH alike. Running and overseeing a wiki requires at least a rudimentary knowledge of the broad range of MediaWiki features, and of established precedent for wiki management (on Wikipedia, etc.).

In a corporate-controlled, publicly-edited wiki such as this one, and other wikis I've worked on, the members of the corporation are generally inactive on the wiki to the point of being irrelevant. By that measure, there is one SysOp on this wiki, and there are 0 bureaucrats. DH is not going to take any interest in the management of this wiki, ever, unless they suddenly decide to do so in a burst of inspiration. All decisions on actual wiki management are therefore going to have to be made by the non-DH editors. With that in mind, there can be one non-DH admin handling administration, or there can be multiple non-DH admins handling administration. Take your pick, 0-0. --Emufarmers 20:58, 7 Dec 2006 (PST)

"there can be one non-DH admin handling administration, or there can be multiple non-DH admins handling administration. Take your pick"

In this regard there are 4 choices being discussed. The third is one non-DH admin listening to and following decisions of an oversight group of ordinary users. I'm not saying that's the "best" choice; I'm saying it could be implemented immediately, even without DH involvement. The 4th choice, status quo, is one non-DH admin doing what he thinks is best, without an oversight group. -- 0-0 04:27, 8 Dec 2006 (PST)

Your "third" choice is not something I would ask even my enemy's dog to do; the listening part is all well and good, but as long as that lone admin is doing all the work it's completely unreasonable to have him also subjected to the "decisions" of an "oversight group" of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks". Do all the work yourself as a volunteer but have it all subject to "after the fact" review and reversion of those willing to "manage" but not work? That's not reasonable. *DH* has review "authority" now, and that is appropriate; I think it is only appropriate to have other non-DH'ers who are equally vested in the *work* having "decision making" power. The 4th choice, is what we have now, with only DH providing oversight instead of an oversight group. While different people see different problems and/or advantages to this, to me the *biggest* problem is one of not having enough help to perform sysop functions. Rlparker 08:03, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)

Even the dog catcher reports to city council (or to city manager or mayor, who reports to city council). I assumed the oversight group is willing to work on things not requiring sysop status, and to help identify things needing sysop action. As for 2nd guessing, my hope is some harsher actions will not be taken until after unanimous, advance agreement of the group. Lately it doesn't seem like very many sysop functions have been required. -- 0-0 17:41, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)

Each of those you just described as reporting to a council (with the possible exception of the mayor of a small town or village) generally serve as *employees* of the council to which they report and are compensated for their efforts *in service* of the *council*. A volunteer working on a project for the betterment of the project should not necessarily be under those same constraints or obligations. While such reporting may be appropriate in some circumstances, I don't see this as being one of them; a volunteer here is working to improve the wiki, and if he has been properly vested with authority to help administer the wiki, he should only be accountable to those who conferred that authority to him (in this case, the party conferring authority is DH).

It's beginning to appear obvious to me that your (0-0) agenda here is significantly different than mine. You seem more focused on controlling the ability of the sysop(s) to act unilaterally as they feel best serves the wiki than you are on getting additional sysops involved in helping with the work. While I recognize your interest in that, I feel the most important and beneficial thing I'd like to see come of all this is for us to get Simon some *help* to make his job easier. Considering the huge amount of work Scjessey has done on this wiki to date, if all this discussion is only to result in further restricting his ability to operate without providing him with some real and meaningful help with the work, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. (note: I apologize for adding this at this point in the discussion - I typed this into the page once before, and could have sworn I saved it yesterday, but noticed this morning it was not here - just another example of my lack of experience with the wiki) Rlparker 07:31, 14 Dec 2006 (PST)

in this case, the party conferring authority is DH

DH's role is mostly benign neglect, in essence, and that could be a good thing(tm). We started out here discussing (non-DH) self-governance. Even volunteer groups usually have boards, and individual volunteers don't just go off and completely do their own thing. It is safe to say DH doesn't closely watch what's happening here, and it is bothersome to have to call them in to settle complaints, which we should settle on our own.

You seem more focused on controlling the ability of the sysop(s) to act unilaterally

I am interested in some checks and balances, and reasonably fair and consistent treatment, and I believe we will get more help if we make it more friendly and encouraging for people here. -- 0-0 20:38, 14 Dec 2006 (PST)

Sigh. I'm almost at the point of throwing my hands up in the air and saying, "you guys figure all this out and get back to me when you've made up your mind." This very discussion illustrates how difficult it is for anyone here to reach a consensus. It all sounds very democratic and wonderful, but it isn't really getting the job done at the moment - the wiki feels rudderless. We need to make some decisions. Not all decisions are going to be popular to all people. Regarding 0-0's "4th choice" - I agree that the current system isn't working. I'd rather have at least one other sysop to share the burden and keep me honest. -- Scjessey 04:36, 8 Dec 2006 (PST)

So, maybe the decision (by DH) on sysop status should be postponed, and maybe it's time to open the floor for: -- 0-0 13:05, 8 Dec 2006 (PST)

It seems to me that "the decision (by DH) on sysop status" has, to a notable degree, already been made; DH has heard significant discussion of Simon's status as sysop, and has not seen fit to make any change in that status. Going forward without DH active involvment at this point necessarily presumes Simon's continued sysop status (assuming he is willing to continue to do it without help). Rlparker 07:06, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)

Nominations for Oversight Committee

I'm not sure who is interested. I'm happy to continue what I'm doing, but I'd like at least two other "customer" sysops to help me, and I'd like them to be committed to trying to flesh out and ratify the policies. -- Scjessey 05:40, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)

After all this, I'm of the present mind to say Simon should remain sysop (serving at DH's pleasure), and that we should strongly lobby (together with one voice!) that DH appoint two additional sysops to help him. I would encourage emufarmers and 0-0(assuming they are willing and 0-0 is willing to abandon his sock puppets while serving ;-) ) to be those initial additional sysops. This makes 3, and contention should be resolved by a simply majority of sysops (with DH retaining ultimate "veto" power). This will solve the immediate "inertia" problem, provide a mechanism for resolving disputes until a fuller set of policies can be developed, and provide some cohesion to the project. If this can be shown to work, it should be a lot easier to prevail upon DH to allow additional administrators in time. Just my two cents worth. Rlparker 06:22, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)

I would be prepared to support your nomination of Emufarmers. -- Scjessey 06:48, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)

You would be prepared to, presumably, because you said you already did. :-)

Thanks for your support, rlparker. I would use Pseudomonad for this purpose. I also support requiring unanimous agreement for selected actions, in addition to simple (2/3) majority. I was thinking I would nominate you, Scjessey and myself; I think that group of 3 would have more balance, since Emufarmers seems to agree with Scjessey most of the time, and you seem like a stabilizing influence. But, since you threw your support that way, and Emufarmers does seem more wiki-skilled, I can support your suggested group. -- 0-0 18:17, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)

You are welcome. Note that in order to "sysop" you would, of necessity, need to use a single user (and Pseudomonad is as good as any other), but I was referring to the fact that I think it is inappropriate to exercise sysop power as one user while continuing to participate on the wiki using other "non sysop" sock puppets. I only mention this as you stated you "would use Pseudomonad for this pupose", which is a bit of a qualified statement and leaves the implication that you might continue to utilize puppetry for "other" purposes. As transparency is one of the goals I believe you (and, I think, the rest of us) find important in the execution of oversight, it would be disingenuous to serve as a sysop/administrator while maintaining alternate personae for other participation.

I have no problem with adding mutually agreed upon "selected actions" that would require unanimous agreement of all members before being taken, in addition to the general concept of simple majority governance; I just believe that *most* actions should be executed with the "majority rule" concept to keep the struggle for consensus from preventing getting anything accomplished. In fact, once the group is determined, they should be able to "tweak" their decision making process at will and from within their own consensus of how to best get stuff done. Initially, of course, consensus would have to be reached on what those "selected actions", that require unanimous agreement, are to be.

While I appreciate your statement that you were thinking of nominating me, I have insufficient expertise with MediaWiki for that to make much sense. I don't feel I can, at present, devote the time necessary to gaining sufficient expertise to actually pitch in with the maintenance and content generation work required to improve the wiki as a sysop. I'll try, on occasion, to contribute in a "gnomish" manner, but that's all I'm "up" for right now. The DH Forum is my "first love", and probably will be where I continue to spend most of my available "helping" time for the foreseeable future. While you and Scjessey butt heads now and then, I think Emufarmers, or another WikiMedia experienced operator can facilitate resolving issues that arise - and, as I stated above, I think DH should ultimately retain "veto" power to resolve any particularly contentious problems (it is *their* site after all, in addition to whatever degree it "belongs" to the "community".) - Rlparker 20:43, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)

"While you and Scjessey butt heads now and then"

It is more than that, unfortunately. Pseudomonad/0-0/whatever and I have completely different philosophies about how to administer this wiki. I have come to the conclusion that a basic set of rules is necessary, and that these rules should be actively enforced (including, where necessary, temporary and permanent IP/username banning). The Wikipedia can enjoy a more relaxed approach to this sort of thing because there are literally millions of active users who can monitor every facet of the service. The number of active users on this wiki is far from achieving the critical mass necessary for self-policing and self-organizing.

I see four basic needs for this "group":

Establishing and refining the policies and guidelines
Active (and sometimes reactive) oversight of the policies
Oversight of the wiki structure (figuring out the best way to classify and categorize)
Contributions

If these four needs cannot be addressed by the group, I see little point in this whole exercise. It is my opinion that "Pseudomonad" wishes to participate in this group to facilitate his own agenda, rather than for the good administration of the wiki. His record thus far (which is difficult to observe due to his penchant for sock puppetry) has been one of self-publicity and active opposition toward any contributions I make. His last comment about my support for Rlparker's nomination of Emufarmers is an example of our icy relationship. To be fair, that is how I perceive it - experience on the Discussion Forum may have left me overly sensitive. It is unclear how the two of us can be expected to work together in anything approaching harmony. -- Scjessey 06:01, 14 Dec 2006 (PST)

I just made a suggestion that I thought might work, and I may well have underestimated the historical level of contention between Pseudomonad/0-0 and Scjessey. Whether or not you two are able, or willing to work cooperatively from your respective agendas is something that, ultimately, only each of you can determine. If that won't work, and I'm willing to concede that it might not, then obviously my ideas was not a "good" one.

I agree with your list of "four basic needs". The way I see it, any success to be achieved is ultimately going to be determined by the degree to which we can develop the first item (policies and guidelines); everything else naturally derives from that. To the degree than any involved in this discussion think I might be useful working on *that* aspect of the project (even if only as a mediator or facilitator of the discussion), I'm willing to help in that area. I just don't know to what degree I'm able to be of much value with the last three items, as I have previously explained.

What I don't see as being useful is a long and contentious debate of policies and guidelines, which could very well result in a failure to reach consensus, without agreeing before hand on a mechanism to resolve the discussion in a way that will allow us to present what we have produced to DH for the their obligatory "yea" or "nay". Maybe we out to "back up" and take it a step at a time instead of jumping straight to the committee/cabal composition. How do you (all) feel about the 5 of us actively involved in the discussion cooperatively producing a set of "working draft" policies and guidelines to be submitted to Dreamhost at whatever point any 3 of the "authors" approve of the draft? If we could accomplish *that*, and with the benefit of Dreamhost's "approval" and/or modification of the polices and guidelines firmly in place, the the mechanism(s) for policy oversight and the instituting of additional admin/sysops/whatever should be much easier to implement. From there, the management of structure and development of content should be able to be accomplished with much less dissension. Damn! My "comments" got "long" again! Rlparker 07:31, 14 Dec 2006 (PST)

It is more than that, unfortunately. Pseudomonad/0-0/whatever and I have completely different philosophies about how to administer this wiki.

It is my opinion that "Pseudomonad" wishes to participate in this group to facilitate his own agenda, rather than for the good administration of the wiki. His record thus far (which is difficult to observe due to his penchant for sock puppetry) has been one of self-publicity and active opposition toward any contributions I make.

His last comment about my support for Rlparker's nomination of Emufarmers is an example of our icy relationship.

Here, you declined to identify who you supported for sysop; there you openly stated it. It's factual, not personal.

Regarding your other comments, I suggest you read (or re-read) the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not

I will only rebut your most obviously false statement, and you should delete your comments as being defamatory in nature. A person who attempts to remain anonymous cannot be accused of “self-publicity.” This is an obvious point of difference between our practices here – you do use this wiki for self-publicity, both in your personal page and the XHTML page, which links to not one, but two places on your personal/commercial site. So, that one's like the kettle calling the white refrigerator black. -- 0-0 20:38, 14 Dec 2006 (PST)

Okay. I understand now that my suggestion as to the makeup of an inital group of sysops was not a very good one, and I apologize for the "detour" from progress my suggestion precipitated - we are probably all best served if we just consider my suggestion withdrawn. "Willy on Wheels" is only one (famous/infamous)example of self-promotion being conducted from the position of anonymity - while he was not promoting a real world person, he *was* promoting *Willy*, just as other famous trolls revel in their anonymous fame. Does anybody here seriously object to promotion of almost *anything* from within a user page? If not, then maybe *there* is a start toward consensus on the whole self-promotion debate.

I also think that there are circumstances where it is completely appropriate to link to an editor's personal site (whether commercial or not) from within an article if the link is to a relevant and useful tutorial or resource. No, I don't really think we need to re-hash the whole outages wiki discssion, but the XTML page links referred to are to useful and informative articles that are relevant to the subject of the article from which they were linked. They are not included at the expense of other references, and add value to the DH wiki. It just as reasonable to call that a sharing of knowledge and information as it is to characterize it as "promotion". Pseudomonad/0-0, if you really feel those links are inappropriate, why not initiate a discussion about it on the talk page of the article, and address the value, or lack thereof, of the linked resource rather then focusing on the fact that they were written and hosted by Scjessey?

While your links to Wikipedia's Civility and What_An_Admin_Is_Not make for good reading, your including them begs a couple of observations. First, while you might consider (possibly influenced by your past experiences) Scjessey's statement of his opinion regarding your motives and his evaluation of your past behavior defamatory, it *was* stated as opinion with an explanation as to why he holds that opinion. He *further qualified* his remarks with ,"To be fair, that is how I perceive it - experience on the Discussion Forum may have left me overly sensitive." Stating opinions in this way cannot reasonably be considered defamation (though stating them so "plainly" *could* be considered "uncivil" if you subscribe to Wikipedia's view of civility - YMMV). Everyone who has followed any of this discussion, or other discussions between you two, is already aware of the contention; that's hardly even noteworthy anymore. What I found noteworthy, and encouraging, is that Scjessey, in spite of his opinions, qualified his statements, admitted his past experiences may have colored his perception, and did *not* say he was not willing to work with you; he wrote that it was unclear how the two of you could be expected to work in...harmony. Given the history between you two, that is about as obvious an attempt at reconciliation as one is likely to see. You could have recognized it as the initiative that it clearly was and responded in an equally tentative tone, leaving room for a more positive future exchange, but you missed the cue and escalated the level of contention again with charges of defamation. It's not necessary that you guys like one another for you to peacefully co-exist, but that is never going to happen unless you *both* manage to attempt a re-approachment, and start assuming good faith rather than assuming malicious intent. I promise, unless asked, that's the *last* I'll have to say about that subject.

WikiPedia's What_An_Admin_Is_Not arguably (just watch the wars on WikiPedia) works for them *in their model*, which is very different than ours. At present, we only have one Non-DH Admin, and the purpose(s) of this wiki are very different than those of WikiPedia's. There is nothing that says an "Admin" here must work the same way it does there. Maybe some, or most, or all of Wikimedia's policies will work here, but it's up for us to hash that out and we are making no progress toward that end by arguing personalities, power, and wiki-politics ad infinitum. I urge you,Pseudomonad/0-0, to forgo debating the way Scjessey uses his "Admin" powers for now (even he'll agree that no one is perfect) and agree to the most recent proposal that has been made. To make that more productive, and to encourage you to participate on a less personal level, I'll even propose that the *Prime Directive" policy be "Admins shall perform their duties in a manner consistent with these policies". Maybe by agreeing on the policies, some of your concerns about Admin actions can be satisfactorily addressed. --Rlparker 02:37, 15 Dec 2006 (PST)

Rlparker has pretty much said all I would have said in response; however, I would just like to clear up something regarding personal links. The links in the XHTML article (as in the Wikipedia article of the same name) to my business website are two useful tutorials for the XHTML developer. Useful resources such as these are likely to be welcome in this wiki (I say likely because no official policy exists at this time). What are definitely not going to be welcome are links to things that are of no use whatsoever, like the infamous "outages wiki" or 0-0's "wiki2". As for my user page, I am free to put anything on there I wish - except for promo codes, affiliate foo, or anything that might seek to misrepresent DreamHost (like a "DreamHost Customers Wiki" link that isn't DreamHost's, for example). -- Scjessey 05:43, 15 Dec 2006 (PST)

Asking for indulgence, I am widening my margins because the thread seems clear enough, and I dislike the narrowing path.

Your group suggestion, rlparker, wasn't all bad; however, it does require all involved being at least civil. BTW, I don't know the evidence, but it is possible that “famous trolls” are multiple people, who could be acting in coordination or independently. The self-anonymous-publicity angle is not applicable here because there are no analogous connections to consistent pseudonyms, or anything similar. In fact, I used different nyms here to try to avoid being singled out for “overly sensitive” treatment. I pointed to Pseudomonad as a positive experience because Scjessey mostly left it alone, ironically, after being asked for his help, and it managed to have a decent track record. I'll continue to claim it until someone else does. :-)

never going to happen unless you *both* manage to attempt a re-approachment, and start

Perhaps you didn't notice: I was not the first here to rehash old history; I opposed the notion of sysop removal (brought up by Scjessey); I clearly stated a willingness to try to work civilly by supporting your nominations. Did Scjessey reciprocate? No. Plain and simple. Also, Scjessey may (or not) have noticed I've used a single, consistent IP during this discussion, which is not my usual practice. Finally, I made a single, factual comment, in response to a single telling statement, and Scjessey put out a couple paragraphs of overt condemnation and general questioning of motives. I think he should understand the point regarding respecting individuals' privacy (and appearances versus reality); if not, I can make it abundantly clear.

why not initiate a discussion about it on the talk page of the article

The point is the inconsistency and arbitrary decisions, not the link. The link wasn't added by some impartial, disinterested person who thought it was good, but by the author. Fine enough, but don't then turn around and complain about self-promotion by others.

I am free to put anything on there I wish

Soft pr0n, extra music pages...., all I'm asking is for less "sensitive" treatment, which a more impartial panel should facilitate. DreamHost Customers Wiki" link that isn't DreamHost's

You're still pretending to be confused. Notice your apostrophe. ;-)

As for supporting the (latest) proposal, and why I haven't voted: A simple, concise proposal statement would be good. There is a lot covered in the 2 paragraphs, and the Pushing Forward link seems broken, I don't want my yes/no vote construed as applying to it all unless that's the case. 96 hours is a long time. Lastly, all that said, it seems premature to head off to broader topics before even deciding how the outcome will be decided (majority, 2/3, unanimous, etc.). Working on that sounds similar to working on previous things, except harder, and still without agreement on how to decide. The locked up sock puppetry article might be a good single issue to take on, except it's almost guaranteed to have abundant disagreements, which is why it's locked and the discussion was erased by Scjessey, btw. This discussion was started for good reasons, and I think we should finish what we started before starting something else.

active opposition toward any contributions I make.

As the draft guideline (or was it policy?) says, you agreed to let people edit what you wrote, so let them. You don't have the right to present only your side of multiple-sided issues, unless it is clearly DH's company position, and it's almost always not. The sooner you accept that, the better it will be for everybody. -- 0-0 11:19, 15 Dec 2006 (PST)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you further on this, except to ask you what you mean by "soft porn". I'm not aware of any porn on the wiki, and if there is some it should be deleted. Nothing else you said was in any way constructive, and it doesn't help us move forward. If you want to participate in the process, you have to vote (Rlparker broke the link by accident). It's your choice. -- Scjessey 14:32, 15 Dec 2006 (PST)

I apologize for inadvertently "borking" the link - yet another example of my clumsiness with wiki synatx. Thanks to all for your patience! --Rlparker 15:32, 15 Dec 2006 (PST)

Man, what a busy week. Looks like I missed all the fun, but I suppose there's still time for me to add in my suggestions for this proposal, though there is no doubt plenty of further refinement in store for it:

Because the proposed rules are each fairly terse summaries, they should all link to the Wikipedia rules and guidelines upon which they are based
The username point should include a note that inappropriate usernames will be blocked on site
The three revert rule needs a note about vandalism; additionally, Wikipedia has no exemption for administrators, but the proposed rules do. Is this intentional?
The personal enrichment point is ambiguous: Are referral links and promotional codes allowed on user pages?
The point which purports to state what the wiki is not doesn't actually state what the wiki is not; it merely states what the wiki is, and warns users not to use it for any other purpose!
We will need a formal style guide, for naming conventions and much more
For a wiki this size, there probably shouldn't be any distinction between a ban and a block
I'd tend to disbelieve the libel point's veracity; since the oversight extension isn't installed on here, someone with database access would need to manually remove revisions from the database. What are the odds of that happening (unless a lawsuit came a comin')? (On a tangentially related note, we need interwiki links to meta.wikimedia.org and mediawiki.org.)

So if I vote agree on this proposal, am I agreeing with it as written, or am I agreeing that there needs to be a set of codified policies and guidelines (which is kind of a "do you like sunshine and puppies?" vote)?

On a final note, I am flattered by all the attention and support I have received, even in my absence. Ordinarily, I would make a joke about sending money or fruit, but I will refrain from doing so in this instance.

P.S. If there were any pornography on this wiki, I would have already downloaded it to my hard drive for safekeeping. I mean, I guess you could find [Pink Floyd picture deleted] to be soft-core porn, but it generally takes a bit more than naked backsides to significantly arouse me. --Emufarmers 18:10, 15 Dec 2006 (PST)

Incredible as it may seem, the "vote" is only to agree or disagree to begin working on the rules before making any more sysops. It is not a vote on the rules themselves, which are still very much a work in progress. I will say this - we can only refer to the Wikipedia's own rules and guidelines as a foundation our own. This wiki is a very different animal (with a commercial interest too), so it will necessarily have different rules and guidelines. Incidentally, the Pink Floyd picture is certainly not porn of any kind. The image comes from a poster that was displayed all over the New York Subway and the London Underground when the band began releasing remastered discs! -- Scjessey 18:38, 15 Dec 2006 (PST)

Apparently, my suggestion that "A simple, concise proposal statement would be good" was more constructive and helpful than you thought. -- 0-0 04:35, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

I think I'll have to disagree, then. I think it's much more important that we get SysOps sorted so they can start a massive reorganization. (I would recommend you stick with the traditional wiki format of voting for future votes, with "agree," "disagree," "neutral," and "comments" sections. It's much cleaner, and easier for users.) Rules are nice, in general, but here, they won't accomplish anything: We've got four people who've actually shown any interest here, and I think we all pretty much know where we each stand. What we need now is to get new administrators up and running: Then we can do a large reorganization, with formalized rules as a part of that. (And while I generally disagree with 0-0 with regards to his veiled claims of you being an evil tyrant, it is true that you would be the only one with the ability to enforce any of the rules' provisions; I don't fear that you would abuse that ability, but I do fear that it would render the rules as nothing more than your interpretation of them.) If we get new SysOps on the job, then the rules-writing will be more collaborative, and, more importantly, we'll be able to get on with working on the wiki.

This wiki is different from Wikipedia, yes, but if a section is named the same thing as an equivilent section on Wikipedia, it makes sense to indicate where it came from. And I was being facetious about teh pr0nz, but I'm guessing that's what 0-0 was referring to. --Emufarmers 23:12, 15 Dec 2006 (PST)

No one, not even Scjessey, is free to put anything on there I wish, but in conjunction with the complaints he stated, it concisely demonstrates an attitude. The connection with Bonus Content is only that those articles are somewhere relatively "out there" for the wiki, and was intended to remind Scjessey that others should be given similar flexibility if he assumes it for himself. -- 0-0 04:21, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

"I think I'll have to disagree, then. I think it's much more important that we get SysOps sorted so they can start a massive reorganization."

Hmmmm. At this point we have a tie in the voting (which closes on Monday morning). Emufarmers is essentially saying we need to make sysops before we make policy, which is pretty much where we started about 50 comments north of here somewhere LOL. Meanwhile, 0-0 is still banging on about the Pink Floyd page. I would rather delete that page than see it used as an excuse for 0-0 to say or do whatever he feels like.

I say we let the voting period run its course and see what happens. If we still remain deadlocked, we'll have to try something else. I am keen to see something resolved though - this is taking up far too much time. -- Scjessey 05:36, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

Bonus Content is a category with 3 pages, not just your favorite one. I suggest you focus more on the good of the wiki, and less on stopping other people. More on listening to constructive comments, and less on personal issues. I'll do it as long as you do, but when you start the "banging on" about personal suspicions, don't expect me to back off. Just read this thread. The pattern can't be more clear. -- 0-0 07:53, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

At least there is progress toward distilling where everybody stands on all this, and if the newest "moving forward" proposal fails because of the desire to actually get additional sysops in place before hashing out the rules further, that is not a bad thing. It should be obvious from my previous comments that I am actually more interested in getting the wiki some help by getting additional sysops than I am in working on the rules, but that I also want to get past this present stage of inertia and get on with doing *something* - with the current vote as it is we are still "stalled". Maybe this would be a good time for Sabrejack to weigh in with a vote, which might not only break the deadlock (though there could also be other voters appear!) but is likely to be significant anyway as DH will have to agree to allow us to have more sysops. There is no way that having more sysops can be anything but positive. Rlparker 10:35, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

Way, way back up there, I think Sabrejack already weighed in on that, by saying, "I propose there be only 3 electorates for a wiki our relatively small size. I'm concerned that finding six (truly) motivated sysops may be beyond our reach at the moment. --Sabrejack 15:46, 30 Nov 2006 (PST)" I think we were more or less on track on the first proposal until the 2nd (New) Proposal added the "bureaucrat" complication, and if we carried on with the committee (to be sysop if deemed by DH) election process, maybe we could get back on track. -- 0-0 12:02, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

Well sure, I think part of that is obvious and I wasn't meaning to imply differently. If Sabrejack does not vote on the latest proposal, or disagrees with it, then all that is true. My point is that, absent any other voters (which we could still have!), Sabrejack *could* cast a deciding vote on the current proposal, if he felt DH would rather have the "rules" addressed before establishing the committee (in whatever form it ultimately takes). Either way, I see anything that moves us *foreward* toward getting some things done as being desirable. My suggestion that we consider the approach that Simon ultimately tuned into the "New Proposal" for a vote was only made in response to the bickering that erupted over my suggested initial committee members, and was only made in hopes of escaping from that imbroglio. I don't care which way we proceed, and will generally "agree" with *any* reasonable suggestion toward that end, but be perfectly content if such a proposal "fails" as long as we can move forward. :-) Rlparker 13:56, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

I have purposely refrained from voting, considering myself a veto and not a voting party. All proceedings have been watched with interest. Perhaps next time we can advertise the vote on the main page and have a proper turnout. Things will stay as they are for now, though.. If/when you feel you're ready for some extra sysops, let me know. I can get that done. We will not be handing out bureaucrat status as of yet, sorry. Something to think about: In my opinion, with all of the effort expended on these discussions, we could have created some pretty high calibre articles! Alas, such is the nature of volunteer work.. grin. --Sabrejack 16:34, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

Pushing forward proposal

It's time to get this show on the road.

I am in favor of any arrangement that facilitates the evolution of the list of policies, and then actively enforcing users to follow these policies. I am also in favor of refining the list of guidelines to help us establish how articles are written and categorized, and then actively encouraging users to follow these guidelines. These statements encompass the first three of the four basic needs I listed above. I will always be an active contributor to this wiki, irrespective of whether or not I am a sysop.

Therefore, I think we should have a period of intense scrutiny and refinement of the policies and guidelines, by any interested parties. Once the policies have been established, and if DreamHost approves of them, I will begin enforcing these policies as best I can. At the same time, we can revisit the matter of additional sysops - we'll have learned much about each other during the collaboration on the policies and guidelines. I am, therefore, calling for a straight vote in this proposal - a simple agree of disagree from interested parties - with the vote being open for 96 hours from this timestamp: Scjessey 09:54, 14 Dec 2006 (PST)

Add Your Vote Here

User Name	Vote	Brief Comments	Signature
Scjessey	Agree	See Pushing forward proposal	Scjessey 09:54, 14 Dec 2006 (PST)
Rlparker	Agree	this is a Good Thing™	Rlparker 14:05, 14 Dec 2006 (PST)
Emufarmers	Disagree	See my comments above	Emufarmers 23:12, 15 Dec 2006 (PST)
0-0	Disagree	See my comments above	0-0 04:21, 16 Dec 2006 (PST)

Voting Period Over - You're stuck with me then

The specified voting period is now over, with a resulting 2-2 tie. The most useful piece of information that can be gleaned from this exercise is that only 4 people actually care about how this wiki is run. Since no agreement on anything has been reached, I am going to continue to administer this wiki as I see fit. If there is any complaint about any editorial decisions I make, I would request that the user leave a message on my talk page and give me a chance to respond before taking any other action. I am happy for a DreamHost employee to overrule/override/reverse any decision I make, but given the time and effort I put into the wiki I would at least feel entitled to a brief explanation on my talk page. -- Scjessey 14:38, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

Call for vote on original concepts

Somehow we diverted away from considering the original proposal, or anything remotely like it, to voting on a completely different question. I call for a straight up vote on the following.

Vote up to 3 votes each, for 3 individuals to remain or become “oversight committee” members, and if supported by DreamHost, to also be sysops. To vote for any nominee, please add signatures below. Also, feel free to add other nominees, request Candidate pages, or ask for Q/A if you think that could affect your voting. Open for 96 hours. -- 0-0 18:53, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

I'm conflicted about whether to vote for Rlparker or not; on the one hand, he seems both articulate and good-natured. However, it doesn't seem like you (if I might switch to the second person, now) have much MediaWiki experience. That's a problem because it means you won't necessarily be able to properly utilize any SysOp capabilities, but more importantly, I've tended to find that people who don't have a good understanding of how MediaWiki works tend not to be properly informe on matters of wiki management, and this could be a problem, whether your role were SysOp, or merely as part of a "committee." It's not as though being a regular editor handicaps you if you're just participating in discussions and editing articles. It could be an impedement as far as spam-fighting goes, though, and maybe it's important that we give the proper tools to those people who're here and active (that might go for 0-0 too). I'm conflicted. I guess it would depend on how long these positions would last. It's usually a lot harder to remove someone from this sort of post than it is to install him (although, then again, maybe on-the-job experience is the best thing, here). I might need an extra day to decide. (And I'll need some comments to help me in that regard!) --Emufarmers 23:28, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

I'm conflicted about whether to vote for Rlparker or not - Hey, that makes *at least* two of us that feel that way. I have *very little* MediaWiki experience; mostly having installed it a few times and played with it to become "passingly familiar". Most of my "wiki time" was served on old Oddmuse wikis *years* ago. Your observations about the problems that lack of experience present are "right on the money" to my way of thinking, which is why I initially *removed* my name from this list of nominations. It's flattering that Scjessey thinks I might be useful, and I don't want to seem disrespectful of that. I'm willing to try to invest the time to learn the software, if my help is needed or desired, because I *do* want to help improve *this* wiki, but I don't plan to vote for myself ;-). It *is* a little frustrating to go through and edit out hidden div link spam from several otherwise empty pages (as has happened twice in the last 3 days), when a simple page deletion (which Scjessey ultimately had to come behind me and do anyway!) would have been "quicker". The "short" version of all this, for me, is, "Let me know how I can help, and I'll try to do it as best I can." --Rlparker 00:17, 22 Dec 2006 (PST)

I believe the terms were understood to be nominally a year. I've adjusted my votes based on subsequent discussions. How can you not vote for yourself, Rlparker?! -- 0-0 00:33, 22 Dec 2006 (PST)

I thought I was pretty clear about why I don't intend to vote for myself in this instance; I just don't feel adequately proficient with MediaWiki at this point, and I'm concerned that I may not be able to dedicate the appropriate amount of time to the project. This is *not* an inconsistent position for me to take. If you check the history/diff's of this discussion, you will see I originally removed my name from the list of nominees, and gave these same reasons :-). That said, out of respect for those who feel I can be of help, I will not remove my name a second time and, accordingly, will *make* the time to do the best I can to help should this vote indicate that's what others desire, because I really want to see this wiki improve. That does not mean *I* think I'm one of the best candidates, and my vote will reflect that ;-). --Rlparker 01:28, 22 Dec 2006 (PST)

Emu- you've shown some wiki-knowledge, but what else can you say about what you bring for this wiki? I know plenty about Scjessey and Rlparker, but not about you. Rlparker has an extensive record in the Forum to give me confidence (if he'll stay a candidate). You've expressed concerns about sock puppets, but I don't know much of anything about your record or how you'll handle things. At least I pointed to my records of work here (and could point to more). As mentioned previously, your record/history here is relatively "light," with about as much here in this discussion as previously. Why should we support you as much or more than Rlparker? -- 0-0 00:52, 22 Dec 2006 (PST)

I'd like to add some comments on experience, if I may. Despite any appearances to the contrary, I would say that I too have very little experience with the MediaWiki software. I have never even installed it. I have a lot of editing experience (probably several thousand edits over a variety of MediaWiki-based wikis), but that's pretty much it. I have taken the trouble to find out what I need to know to do the job here, but it should also be understood that a sysop has very little extra power (protects, bans, deletes, restores, etc.) over what a user has. My lack of MediaWiki software knowledge is my chief reason for voting for Emufarmers. As 0-0 points out, Emufarmers doesn't have much of an editing record thus far, but I feel like we need that valuable MediaWiki experience - at least in the first year. Both Emufarmers and I have expressed a strong interest in beginning a massive reorganization of articles and categories - something that requires a lot of planning and a sysop status. Much of the content here is based on the original Knowledge Base, none of which was very wiki-friendly.

To address Emufarmer's concern over Rlparker's experience, I feel like I need his help for a number of reasons. I am not known for being very diplomatic, and Rlparker has been a very good mediator and calming influence. He appears to have infinite patience and tolerance, which I would think would be very helpful in dispute resolution. Titanic arguments with 0-0 provide proof that I am not very good at dispute resolution, so I'd rather pass the buck on most of those sorts of problems. Another asset that Rlparker brings to the table is his excellent record on the Discussion Forum. There are many articles that are very conversational (not very article-like) and need cleaning-up. Whenever I edit these I end up getting into arguments with people who insist their comments are important. I'd rather have somebody else take care of that stuff so I can concentrate on structural stuff.

Finally, I am convinced we need at least 3 people doing this, because I still want to have time to create articles and have an "outside life" as well. -- Scjessey 08:13, 22 Dec 2006 (PST)

Gee, little old me...well, aside from the wiki I run, I've been active on another wiki or two, including a bit of work on Wikipedia. I'm fully proficient with wiki markup (outside of tables, which I loathe), and have backed up, restored, and upgraded MediaWiki in a live environment, and am fairly scholarly in my knowledge of wiki conventions from Wikipedia and elsewhere. I created the skeleton for the wiki I run through a combination of sporking and my own creativity, and am a stickler for formatting and settings standards and conventions. I haven't done much work on this wiki, simply because I haven't seen a whole lot of point, so far: I can't delete pages, and I need to be able to do that to do a mass reoganization, and prior to this whole election thing, my top priority has been badgering every DH I could get my grubby hands on about upgrading the wiki software (on talk pages, IRC, posting a suggestion thingie in the panel, and even sending an email). Still, I've managed to give Saberjack and Scjessey a tip or two about the finer aspects of wiki administration. I guess it's a Catch-22: Some people won't want to see me as a SysOp unless I already have a fat, padded edit history, but I just don't see a whole lot of point in fixing typos when there're so many things in the wrong places, here. I like donkey-work, but I much prefer to do the top-level stuff first and then work my way down to the niceties.

Anyway, that touchy-sounding response of mine aside, Scjessey's comments about Rlparker (we could probably start to refer to each other less formally at some point) are convincing. I think I can throw my lot behind him, since it seems like I can trust that he'll defer when knowledge of the wiki is paramount, and get involved when it's something less technical (forums and wikis have a lot of differences, but the forums do seem to be where all the action is at the moment, and so we do want voices from them on here). If worst came to worst and he couldn't devote sufficient time to the wiki, I think he'd been mature enough to step down and let us find a replacement. --Emufarmers 01:52, 23 Dec 2006 (PST)

Thanks for responding. I don't intend for this to be overly critical or insulting, but... I see 2 links to the same site under "wiki" and "another wiki"; it's a minor point, but in conjunction with your clear interest in coming in and taking over at the top, it seems significant to me. Also, I could be wrong, but with a few exceptions, a regular user can re-organize a lot with Moves, and it's not a big deal to ask a sysop to delete a page. I appreciate your support for Rlparker, and I think it somewhat confirms my feeling that this wiki could use some "mature" or moderating influences. Frankly, technical wizardry seems secondary to emphasis on getting things fixed up. I'm also not very concerned with minor typos in articles, but I think there's very, very much to be done in the middle range below massive re-organization. Demonstrated willingness to help DH customers fix problems (like Rlparker does daily in the Forums) is important. -- 0-0 03:58, 23 Dec 2006 (PST)

I know it's still a little early, but I'm ready to give my concluding recommendation and opinion, especially since I'm the one who called for this particular vote, and all the interested folks have voted.

I think "we" should recommend Rlparker for sysop status. If Rlparker had self-voted, that would be unanimous and the most support for one person. To me, Rlparker's hesitation to even accept nomination is one of the strongest points in favor. Somebody who's not sure they want this job is probably the best choice at this point.

Rlparker's active involvement record in the Forum more than adequately offsets lack of involvement in this wiki, and I am not concerned about relative lack of wiki-skill, which can be picked up. Rlparker's ability to mediate or moderate (with Scjessey) would be a very good addition, particularly going into a phase of firming up guidelines and policies. I think the non-DH team already has (more than) enough "here's how it's gonna be, because I said so" attitude, and would greatly benefit from someone who can use a more cooperative and congenial approach.

As always, YMMV, and these voters have clearly demonstrated what they think of my opinions. ;-> -- 0-0 03:58, 23 Dec 2006 (PST)

Rather than be redundant, and in the interests of keeping this page readable, I'll just to Emufarmer's and 0-0's latest comments here. Emufarmer's assumptions about my willingness to defer "in matters where wiki knowlege is paramount" and my willingness to step down should I not be able to devote adequate time to this wiki are correct, and I'm glad he was able to discern that from my previous remarks. I greatly appreciate the magnanimity with which 0-0 has indicated his willingness to support me taking a role on the "oversight committee" and/or as a sysop. Obviously, if either of those situations occurs, it will be a continual challenge for me to meet everyone's expectations; all I can promise is that I will do my best, and do it candidly and honestly with the best interests of the DH *user* foremost in my mind. This could all be "moot" anyway, as DH has yet to weigh in on these latest developments.

I also think that some clarification may be in order as to why I only voted for 2 instead of 3 nominees, particularly in light of my initial suggestion that 0-0 be on the committee and my subsequent agreement with Scjessey's suggestion that *all* 4 nominess be in the group. The issue of the use of sock puppets, in the context of a user who serves as both an admin/sysop or other "manager" of a group in which that user also participates, is an important one for me. 0-0 and I have discussed this before, and at some length. I understand his position on that issue, and respect his beliefs, but continue to feel strongly that a sysop in a community needs to have some integrity of identity - even while remaining anonymous. I was hopeful that 0-0 would see enough value in that argument to be willing to abandon the use of puppets *on this wiki* for the greater good of serving as a sysop here, but certainly can find no fault with him for declining to do so; one should do what one thinks one should do! That issue, and that issue alone, is why I did not tender a vote for 0-0 in this most recent call for votes.

My frustration with that development is only exacerbated by Sabrejack's most recent comments; it could well be that the committee, and/or DH acting unilaterally, could proscribe the use of sock puppets on this wiki anyway. Should that happen, 0-0 would be faced with the decision to either continue to participate on this wiki as a single anonymous identity or to withdraw from participation. I would hate to see him withdraw from participating, and his continued participation as a single anonymous identity is all I could have asked for to support him in the last vote (I initially nominated him, subject only to that concern!). All that said, it is only offered by way of candid explanation to 0-0 as to why I voted as I did and *not* as any any kind of inducement or negotiation designed to persuade him to change his position. I find such Machiavellian manipulations to be disrespectful of others' beliefs, and want it clearly understood that I would never ask any nominee/candidate, for *any* position, to exchange their deeply felt principles for a vote. --Rlparker 13:54, 23 Dec 2006 (PST)

I know we have nearly infinite ink here, but I will try to keep this short. I encourage you to maintain your positive tendencies (e.g. "remove invisible link spam"), and not fall into the negative habits (e.g. "evil spammer scum"). Those practices become reflexes that easily spill over into dealings with constructive folks. For someone who parses statements carefully, I am a bit disappointed you found my answers to say what you anticipated, rather than what I attempted to say. Regardless, as I prepare to soon submerge once again into the murky waters of the international Tor exit nodes, I wish you the best! -- 0-0 19:22, 23 Dec 2006 (PST)

Emufarmers

Rlparker 19:05, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

Scjessey 06:31, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

Emufarmers 23:28, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

Pseudomonad/0-0

0-0 18:53, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

Scjessey

Rlparker 19:05, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

Scjessey 06:31, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

Emufarmers 23:28, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

Rlparker

Scjessey 06:31, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

0-0 00:33, 22 Dec 2006 (PST)

Emufarmers 01:52, 23 Dec 2006 (PST)

Question re. Vote on Original Proposal - Questions for Nominees

I've one vote remaining, and would like to ask a couple of questions before tendering that vote:

For 0-0

If elected to serve on the oversight committee, are you willing to abandon *all* use of sock puppets on this wilki, even when not performing sysop functions? I note that you have said you would use a single "nom de guerre" for sysop functions, but I still have concerns about the duplicity of acting as a sysop under one identity while participating on the wiki in other capacities utilizing sock puppets.
How would you address my concerns that your functioning as a sysop of *this* Dreamhost wiki, while administrating the other "customers.dreamhosters.com" wiki, and related sites, presents a potentially significant conflict of interest? --Rlparker 19:20, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

I'd like to think that 0-0 would do the right thing in this situation. I really don't think there is a legitimate excuse for sock puppetry on this wiki, and I'd be in favor of an outright ban. I personally don't see the point of the "other wiki", but I believe 0-0's actions here are all we need to concern ourselves with...

... Wow. Did I really just defend 0-0? -- Scjessey 19:50, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

It looks that way to me! :-) Please understand my questions should not be viewed as an "attack" that should need any "defense"; I just want to know how he feels about these issues before I vote. --Rlparker 00:05, 20 Dec 2006 (PST)

1. I would not use sock puppets for forbidden purposes, and in general I would resign if I could not support the rules. I won't agree in advance to swear off *all* use of sock puppets, and I won't trade my future vote on that issue for votes now. I understand the comfort many people feel when they think they know “who is who,” or at least think they know what to expect from a Username based on past patterns. I understand the discomfort with “the unknown.“ Finally, I also understand good motivations for "giving" anonymously.

2. Based on minimal (non-spam) content, the "customer sites" activities are not significantly different from anybody else who has related articles on other sites, and also edits in this wiki, including linking their own site. To the extent they could become an attraction to move activities elsewhere, I see the concern; however, that prospect appears unlikely. I do think it would be even "more cool" than the company-run forum and wiki for the following reasons. It runs under a customer account on a regular server with the latest software versions available; thus it is an accurate example of what customers could expect (in contrast to this wiki and the forum); and it would be truly customer-organized and run. -- 0-0 04:39, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

For what it's worth, I'm about -this- far from disallowing multiple accounts for any reason period. This is not Wikipedia and there is no particular reason we should allow multiple accounts or promote anonymity. The purpose of an account is ..well.. accountability, and multiple accounts obfuscates that. Everybody should be prepared to pick an account name and stick with it. Anyone made sysop would be required to use one and only one account for all activities so we can properly track their contributions (good or bad.) --Sabrejack 15:06, 22 Dec 2006 (PST)

A better idea

I've got a better idea, chaps. Clearly, the four of us are the only people who are interested in the development and oversight of this wiki. We are the movers and shakers here. Nobody else has shown the slightest bit of interest in what we are trying to achieve. All four of us should be sysops, and Sabrejack et al can "officiate" when all four of us are deadlocked on any specific decision. Although I disagree with much of 0-0's philosophy, that doesn't negate the fact that he makes many valid and useful contributions - albeit under a variety of guises. I get the impression that both Emufarmers and Rlparker prefer to keep a lower profile than either myself or 0-0. I propose, therefore, that 0-0 (although I gather he prefers Pseudomonad) and myself be the main trailblazers for this wiki, with Emufarmers and Rlparker assuming advisory roles to help keep the ship steady. Emufarmers brings a pretty solid knowledge of MediaWiki to the table, and Rlparker has proved himself to be a good mediator between two very fiery personalities. If everyone is in agreement, I'd like to go ahead and ask Sabrejack to extend sysop status to cover all four of us. -- Scjessey 19:41, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

That sounds like a good idea, but the sockpuppet issue would need to be addressed first. By the way, don't mistake my being relatively quiet in this discussion as a lack of initiative; I enjoy good debate quite a bit, and generally participate voraciously, but I've tended to find a lot of the discussions here too inane for even my tastes. (That, and I've been busy the last few weeks.) For this particular wiki, I'm much more interested in getting a chance to do massive reorganization, recategorization, demolition, consolidation, and other administrative tasks that this wiki so sorely needs. To put it another way, I've been so quiet because I've been waiting for DreamHost to come around to the idea of giving me the tools I need in order to do what I want to get done. --Emufarmers 20:41, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

It ought to be pretty obvious by now that I am in favor of almost anything that moves toward *agreement* and *progress" as opposed to miring us in contention and dissension. I don't mind helping any way I can (within the limits I've already described) - if all concerned parties like *this* idea, then I say , "Yea!", though I too (as is obvious from my question above) think the sock puppet issue needs to be resolved. If Scjessey is not concerned about a conflict of interest, then I probably shouldn't be either. ;-) --Rlparker 00:23, 20 Dec 2006 (PST)

I find myself thinking of the old question, "Would I really want to be a member of a group that would have *me* as a member?" Frankly, the concerns over puppetry, and the notion that advance assurances make a big difference, gives me pause. Also, I am beginning a busy few weeks myself. Things are likely to improve simply from having a group of interested people working together on oversight, whether or not it includes me. I can support the 4 people as proposed here by Scjessey, or you 3 without me, or 3 including me. The important thing is to quit spinning wheels here, agree to a group, and propose it to Sabrejack. So, I suggest: let's either finish the voting for 3 above, or declare support for the 4 here. I've done both. -- 0-0 04:41, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

I see 0-0's frankness about sock puppetry as a good sign. I believe that all four of us want to Do The Right Thing™. Perhaps it might be a good idea to give 0-0 a chance to see how his other wiki works out. I recommend that we ask Sabrejack to extend sysop rights to Rlparker and Emufarmers, with an option to do the same thing to Pseudomonad if the workload becomes difficult and we need his help. Agreed? -- Scjessey 05:04, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

For the record, I didn't say anything about wanting "a chance to see how his other wiki works out." If you want to vote for a group of 3, you should vote above, where a call for votes is "on the table." -- 0-0 05:43, 21 Dec 2006 (PST)

User talk:Scjessey/Election Discussion

Contents

Comments

3 candidates

Policies and Guidelines

Questions

Answers/Comments

New Proposal

Nominations for Oversight Committee

Pushing forward proposal

Add Your Vote Here

Voting Period Over - You're stuck with me then

Call for vote on original concepts

Question re. Vote on Original Proposal - Questions for Nominees

A better idea

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

dreamhost links

Search

Toolbox

User talk:Scjessey/Election Discussion

Contents

Comments

3 candidates

Policies and Guidelines

Questions

﻿Answers/Comments

New Proposal

Nominations for Oversight Committee

Pushing forward proposal

Add Your Vote Here

Voting Period Over - You're stuck with me then

Call for vote on original concepts

Question re. Vote on Original Proposal - Questions for Nominees

A better idea

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

dreamhost links

Search

Toolbox

Answers/Comments