Charles Matthews wrote: > Surreptitiousness wrote: > >> I don't disagree at al', but the arbitration committee have tended to >> take the view that incivility alone is not a reason to remove the admin >> toolbox and flag. >> > Well, in my view, if incivility in an admin is a sign of other problems > (in the spectrum of stress to burnout to overestimation of own ability > to handle awkward people) it is indicative of something serious about > suitability to the role. If it is the result of a long campaign of > trolling that has finally got an answer in kind, then it is a sign just > of human fallibility. Despite a few cases of high profile, the ArbCom of > my time was certainly sympathetic with admins, and wary of people who > were not obviously working for the good of the project saying "I was > disrespected". That said, it's a grey area, and has probably become more > murky over time. We don't want and never have wanted cussing admins. > > I'd offer the view that an admin who gets involved as one party in a long series of trolling may not be suited to the role either. It could be taken to suggest the admin has an issue with knowing when to step back, or possibly even too much self-belief in their own righteousness to be bordering on arrogance. Both of these would indicate an unsuitability to the role. I've often found arb-com too sympathetic to admins who cry, "but they were picking on me". The first question I'd ask any admin is "and who did you call in to mediate?" Admins have a far greater responsibility to invest in the dispute resolution process, even and especially right down to the point of disengaging. I speak as an admin who has been in this situation. Any admin who thinks their solution is the only way is wrong, and any arbitration committee that thinks Wikipedia would be worse off losing an admin is wrong. We all live in the real world, we all acknowledge there are times we get chewed out even though we did everything right, just because sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles. Sometimes you take one on the chin to keep up appearances. Life is full of hard decisions, and Wikipedia isn't going to be any different. We need people on the arbitration committee who are aware that justice can't only be done, it needs to be seen to be done. The last part is the harder part, and the committee has to my mind often failed in that sense by being, as you say, sympathetic with admins. I really think the committee should instigate a policy of temporarily removing admin bits, akin to blocking, say for 48 hrs up to a month depending on the circumstances. That way you have a balance in punishments, and justice can be seen to be done through the indefinite blocking of trolls and also the temporary desysop of someone who maybe did everything right but at the end of the day it could have been done better.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
