[WikiEN-l] Civility poll results

[Surreptitiousness]

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.