Forum for KGS Worst Admin
Deletion of page 'KGSWorstAdminOrAssistant/here' [#1763]
PeterHB: I have deleted the page 'KGSWorstAdminOrAssistant/here' today (2009-03-15).
It was a page headed: 'Following material: Conversational Transcript Time:Sunday, 15th March 2009, 6:55am GMT Place:KGS Server, "English Chat Room" added by 203.214.105.136 on 2009-03-15 08:39
It appeared to outline a text conversation between 3 KGS users: BigDoug, C0nfuseki and hotgochick.
I have no reason or evidence to know whether the transcript was true and accurate, or not.
In my opinion, the addition of the 'KGSWorstAdminOrAssistant/here' page to SL was an attempt to malign the KGS user BigDoug, and suggest he was the same person as hotgochick. Again, in my opinion, the KGSWorstAdminOrAssistant page as an exercise in letting off steam and allowing people to present their point of view, form an argument, and campaign for change, is in the spirit of SL. However, I feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere between freedom of speech ( a good thing ), and abuse leaning towards slander. One guide to good form on SL is the page WikiEtiquette. I recognize that deletion ( a form of censorship), is not in the spirit of SL, which has made this decision difficult.
By the action of deleting the page, it can be inferred that in my opinion the page was not suitable for having on SL. More of a personal attack than a cogent argument. This has been a difficult judgement call, and I may have got it wrong, which is particularly why I have attempted to explain myself here. It is worth noting that as SL is a community, not just me, there are many people to be able to appeal to, and ultimately I am answerable to both them & the admins for my actions.
(P.S. For potential interest bias: I'm not a KGS admin, and I've never spoken to 'BigDoug'. )
I probably would have noted my opinion in the page and asked for opinion from other deshis for a while, but I don't think you acted wrong.
On the guise of "removing slander", this SL has inadvertently or purposefully turned a check on Admin abuse into a congratulatory admin page.
Why bother explaining this, if you are just going to attempt to refresh the admin's images by saying that the complainers are being malicious?
Keep this in mind "power corrupts," and you just sided with the powerful.
Please note that BigDoug wasn't admin for quite some time.* (Even if he seems to be reinstated now.) Also, the KGS Worst Admin page is available. Previously the page had tons of outdated complaints dating back several years incl. mock nominations and ridicule by KGS Admins of people complaining, nobody had to take it serious. If now an admin goes to the same excesses the page will aggregate complaints on him and it will be obvious that all of them are recent. I believe refreshing the page from time to time gives newly added complaints a higher moral authority, if anything.
- I share the feeling the BigDoug is clearly not fit for an admin job. This was painfully obvious from personal observation (I basically was threatened with a ban only minutes after I refreshed the admin complaints page, removing tons of complaints about him in particular.) and all the complaints, which are still available in the page history.
Certainly, if you feel this way. Please delete my subpage entry "transcript01" as well.
'KGSWorstAdminOrAssistant/transcript01' seems fine to me. It and the link pointing to it seem to stick to Wikietiquette, in my opinion. I don't have a problem with people discussing BigDoug, KGS admin policies, or introducing evidence to support their argument. I'm just looking for ordinary civilities, as suggested by Wikietiquette. I don't want to start a censorship bandwagon.
hmm... Well, I don't completely agree with you PeterHB. But that's by the by.
I totally understand the inability to determine fact/fiction in a post to be a problem. I can also see that people making posts and claiming them to be true as a real nightmare in maintaining the integrity of SL.
There is no real way to transcribe chat and show it's legitimacy. This may be a good thing. As talk can be taken out of context simply by starting where the conversation is at it's middle. (arriving late into the conversation) Now, that may have happened to me... and thus I may have unknowingly brought a new meaning to what was said.
However, what I was transcribing were a couple of conversations (one public / one private) in an effort to explain where I saw an admin behaving badly. The accusation that BigDoug was HotGoChick? was, in my mind, a suggestion that BigDoug actually wasn't insulting anybody. And so, any real offence that the Admin was doing - may have just been trollishness in the Engligh Chat Room. Which doesn't have the same strict protocol on points of view and behaviour.
This entire transcript, like all things on SL, can't really be proved (unless you have a goban next to you and time to work out all the great Go stuff). So I was happy to have people think about the sub-post as just some garbage... But, the main thing here is bringing about a change in attitude. Which is: Being able to monitor the behaviour in the chat room for nonsense and share truthful insights with people who want to know. (Not advertising it unwarrantedly).
Perhaps SL is a bad choice for this case. It is a public message board where people tend to read things and instantly believe them without approaching them with a critical mind. (eg: those who fall for the 
bomber) Personally, I believe that this isn't a good way for developing go strength... but blah! (Who really cares what I think?)
Sincerely, C0nfuseki
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")