(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 [1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=next&oldid=153438679 ][2http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=142619205&oldid=142335425 ][3http://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 [4http://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 ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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 ryan.delaney@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:18 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com 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