Category talk:Eguor admins/Archive 1

message: I'm not sure if this is a good idea.  Certainly, it doesn't seem helpful to have two opposite/warring factions of administrators.  Probably, all such categories should be deleted.  --Cyde Weys 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I'm with Cyde here.  There's an implicit critique of "rougeness" which is not really needed, given that different people interpret that category very differently anyway.  Also, the example about Jimbo is not so good--I recognize that it's intended to be a wittily absurd hyperbole, but in fact many of our disgruntled editors do end up pissed off with Jimbo sooner or later. Chick Bowen 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To dyslexics, this is a duplicate category. Perhaps, we should merge them ;). NoSeptember 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole point of rouge admins is that we are not rogue at all.  It's about how frustrated POV pushers react to being thwarted, not about what we do. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Readers who follow all the links in the category page will find, among the jokes, this rather serious exchange at User talk:Cwiki.  I was flattened by a virus when it got floated on WP:AN and didn't manage to fish out the thread after things got resolved, although I certainly looked.  This appears to be an Australian medical doctor who got swept up in the AWilliamson cleanup.  It wasn't until the editor himself left an appeal at my talk page that I became aware of the problem.  And from what I make of the user history he or she probably got fed up with Wikipedia last summer because Williamson was rampaging in his Joan of Arc vandal edit warring armor.
Another recent example might draw ire because of its associations, but over at User_talk:ATren#Final_Warning a bit of evenhanded civility prompted a strikethrough and an apology from two editors who had been on their way down a bad path.  I've been dealing with other appeals through e-mail and while they're confidential I think I can mention that one of them is from the primary contributor to a good article who got sitebanned over a sophomoric joke.
Where can these sorts of potentially okay people turn?  They'll get some very counterproductive advice at various attack sites.  Basically I'm stepping forward to say I'll sift through some frivolous appeals for the ones that have potential since that's what I do anyway.  I don't set out to act antagonistically - if I cross that line then follow my userpage link to :Category:Administrators open to recall.  You know what to do.  For the kind of investigations I perform credibility matters more than the sysop tools.  The tools are handy, but what really matters is I earn the participants' respect.  Any other admin who wants to join up is welcome. DurovaCharge 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is this "Eguor admins" and not "Eguor wikipedians"? As you point out the tools are not relevant to these actions, a credible non-admin should be just as effective. NoSeptember 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because editors who have problems single out sysops for accusations of cabalism.  Some of those people go out of their way to persuade others that admins are power hungry cabalists.  The example at ATren's talk page was a mild case and one that could be turned around.  Here's another more pernicious example.  That dynamic is by no means exclusive to Wikipedia.  One of the keys to maintaining a healthy website is to ensure that those beliefs don't reach critical mass.  Otherwise volunteers burn out, sysops get frustrated and make more mistakes, and more Australian medical doctors get mistaken for long term vandals. DurovaCharge 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is rather the point.  The whole "rouge admin" thing is a joke about precisely that: they accuse us of being a cabal, but we aren't.  Or if we are, it's so secret that most of the supposed members don't know about it.  I'd have unblocked Cwiki myself when  I had tme to review it, but was beaten to the punch by someone with better knowledge of the Joan of Arc vandal.  That had nothing to do with WP:ROUGE.  Nothing at all.  Rouge admin is a satire on the hysterical postings of "rouge admin abuse" made by webmasters of deleted websites, moderators of deleted forums and other assorted WP:COI-violating ne'er-do-wells.  It's not about assuming bad faith, I have been robustly criticised for assuming good faith in the case of Brian Crawford.  It's not about trigger-happy blocking, Calton is complaining about failure to block a load of Primetime socks right now.  It's a satirical way of saying that assuming good faith applies to "victims" of admins as well, because we are only human and the pay is lousy.  Guy (Help!) 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The spirit of the thing 

message: ...is pretty weird if you ask me (which, incidentally, you didn't, but still). I think a better name would be Gambit Admins, or possibly Noir Admins. Bonus points to anyone who can make a cute mispeling in those, or add a reference to some D&D class. >Radiant< 11:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paladin.  Dwarven defender.  Egad I'm a geek. DurovaCharge 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: BTW cook up a better name if you feel so inclined. DurovaCharge 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of the thing 

message: Needs a flag though. The rouge flag is red. What color is eguor ? is it a similar color to ichor?  More seriously, I'm desirous of joining because, really, I agree, these are complimentary philosophies. Both are subsets of Doing the Right Thing, after all. ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Join up, dress it up.  We're a wiki. :) DurovaCharge 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You should get User:Eequor to join. >Radiant< 16:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm in. What I think nifty about ROUGE though is that it's awarded by others. I'm not sure I agree cyan is the right color, that's opposite, not complimentary. Have to think. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You could use a different coloring method and end up with green? >Radiant< 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems a neat idea 

message: Not sure the opposition should be admins, indeed there perhaps a eugor category for users would be better. Until recently User:Adam Carr claimed to be leader of the opposition on the basis that he was a high level contributor who wasnt an admin and I think any effort to limit the wikipedia opposition only to admins is not an idea that is likely to be taken seriously, and certainly should be strongly opposed, SqueakBox 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and move the category name then. DurovaCharge! 04:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Only admins? lol

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

message: The militant mentality of many administrators, thinking of themselves as defenders of the wiki against trolls and vandals, only worthy of contempt and blocks, is completely contrary to the fundamental principle of good faith. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be perfectly candid, it doesn't seem to me that many administrators have that sort of mentality.  We're volunteers who've put a lot of unpaid labor into helping the site.  Once in a while we get frustrated because we spend so much time mopping up.  I do hope that non-sysops view this category as an act of good faith: without casting aspersions on anybody, I pledge to give a fair hearing to people who can present a good case.  So far the situations I've corrected have been simple this-guy-slipped-through-the-cracks things.  But by golly, if a cabal ever does form I don't want to be in it. DurovaCharge! 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bravo