[WikiEN-l] Civility poll results

[George Herbert]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Emily Monroe<bluecaliocean at me.com> wrote:
> Hmm. What about somebody who has privileges?
>
> Clearly somebody who has non-admin rollback (like myself) may or may
> not have it removed. It would depend if the person being incivil is
> using the rollback to be incivil. Non-admin rollback is a position of
> trust, but not a lot of trust.
>
> An admin, steward, or bureaucrat, on the other hand, may have their
> privileges taken away. If you are in such a position, you're in a
> position of not just trust, but *trust*. Incivility takes away that
> trust.
>
> People may disagree with me, though. I get that.

I think the people who ask to be stewards or bureaucrats seem to be
unlikely to offend; they seem to be the stablest of us.

Admins not necessarily so.  I think that part of the reluctance to
confront abusive admins is the "but we don't want to kick them out of
being an admin over this".

Except that a civility warning, even a civility block, don't equate to
admin rights removal.  Arbcom can remove those - Stewards or B'crats
in an emergency.  The user could resign the rights.  But just being
blocked for normal behavior (not admin bit abuses) doesn't trigger any
of those automatically.

It's easier to maintain AGF on an admin who I know and has been around
for a while (and generally, for experienced users), but AGF doesn't
mutually exclude someone who clearly wants the best for Wikipedia but
is expressing that in an abusive manner.

I've warned admins for abusive behavior.  Nothing bad has happened as
a result.  I think it's acceptable to the community.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com