(By comparison and to underline what is possible, I've had "thank you" notes on-wiki, multiple times not just once, from people whose articles I deleted or whose AFD noms I closed against them, thanking me for a fair and well reasoned summing up and for the courtesy shown to them [1<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=next&oldid=153438679> ][2<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=142619205&oldid=142335425> ][3<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=154878808&oldid=154709494>]. It's even possible to be civil and courteous to self-announced racists when deleting their hate material [4<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NatDemUK#Your_user_page_.28again.29>]. Taking firm action and even disagreeing is compatible with respecting others and considering how they may legitimately feel.)
FT2 On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM, FT2 <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you're missing the point, or not appreciating where I'm looking. > The point about basic attitudes is they inform all other discussions. An > admin who embodies courtesy, thoughtfulness, calmness, balance, is not the > kind who will be (as you describe) "fundamentally unwilling to talk about > it, or even listen". That's a basic attitude problem, verging on > incompatibility with adminship. Yes BLP is a serious matter. So is resisting > "mass panic" and engaging in dialog and consensus seeking - another basic > attitude: faced with a major crisis some will forget such basics and others > won't. > > I wasn't active at the time (on wikibreak) so I didn't see the blow by blow > unfolding of all this nor "who did what". While BLP is a major problem, > there was probably very little that needed doing "that day" or which would > not have tolerated courtesy and time for a formal consensus seeking > approach. Even if some felt that these articles needed radical handling, > that would not negate a good basic attitude of respectfulness - it's as easy > as "Apologies, I don't disagree that we need discussion but I feel this > deletion is required. You do have valid points though". > > The fact that you felt as you describe actually demonstrates the point I'm > making - because the things you describe as "the problem" would actually all > be failings of very basic courtesy and standards to other users. Your own > words show it - your complaint is unwillingness to talk, unwillingness to > listen, arguing against the person not the issue, incivility, > belittlement, etc. The words you're using show the problem was not really > BLPs or even the complexity of the dispute, but more it was the way that > basic attitudes were not sufficiently followed by all participating admins. > If they had been, you would not have felt as you describe. > > My argument is therefore directly in line with that - that admins need to > be first and foremost, people who can and do exemplify good standards of > conduct - even in a heated matter. > > > FT2. > > > > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Ryan Delaney <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:18 PM, FT2 <[email protected]> wrote: >> (snip) >> >> > Given that the community has fairly stable long term and universal norms >> > (although the detail and edge cases are very uncertain) what we need is >> > admins who at least agree and follow those norms or try to, to a high >> > standard. This would mean taking care in grey cases to avoid risk of >> upset >> > even if it's an "edge case"... take care to be visibly fair and neutral >> > even >> > if they could argue they aren't involved, take care to explain and >> > apologize >> > if needed rather than assume or act rough. >> > >> > This is what I mean by needing users to have the right basic attitude. >> the >> > rest then overlays that. >> > >> > FT2 >> > >> > >> I'm still losing sight as to what this has to do with administrator >> flame-out. >> >> Anyway, I think you've chosen easy cases for "universally accepted >> standards". Let's try a hard case of a disagreement about basic values >> that >> directly led to my 'flame out' and retirement: Should an administrator >> avoid >> the appearance of impropriety by declining to use sysop tools to enforce >> the >> Biographies of Living Persons policy in a dispute where he could be seen >> as >> a participant? My opinion, and that implied by a few interesting Arbcom >> rulings, is that it's dangerous -- but BLP-violating content is much more >> dangerous, so we ought to remove it with all possible haste. That is not >> at >> all everyone's opinion, as I found out. >> >> Now, in my view, that's a kind of disagreement people ought to be able to >> talk about. Both sides are plausible and it's a hard nut to crack, and you >> could hold either viewpoint in good faith. So suppose I really was wrong. >> Someone should be able to peer-review administrative conduct and say >> "Look, >> you don't want to do it that way because X Y and Z consequence is bad for >> the project." That's how we reach this kind of consensus about how things >> ought to be done that gradually takes form in the policy. The problem was >> that not only did people disagree with me, but they were fundamentally >> unwilling to talk about it, or even listen to what I had to say: rather, >> they took on this exact same attitude that you display here: "These are >> the >> rules, you fucked up, so grovel and apologize, and you should be >> desysopped. >> It's not necessary to explain why the rules are the rules because they're >> the rules. If you don't understand or disagree, you're a problem, and >> having >> you around is bad for the project." What you said is the nice way of >> saying >> the same thing. >> >> Why would anyone want to be an administrator in this kind of environment? >> >> - causa sui >> >> _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
