On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
I'll save this one for requoting in the future. Admins do shoot back, all of the time, they escalate things, the dance around direct questions leading to needless chatter.
I thought it was just a mop and bucket, and no big deal, not a requirement for perfection.
I do agree this is one rule admins should follow, though: don't shoot back.
KP
On 6/17/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
I'll save this one for requoting in the future. Admins do shoot back, all of the time, they escalate things, the dance around direct questions leading to needless chatter.
When someone shoots back during their RfA, when you can expect them to be on their best behavior, then it's a big problem.
I thought it was just a mop and bucket, and no big deal, not a requirement for perfection.
It *is* a big deal. Admins can cause a lot of problems, and can solve problems too. The no-big-deal attitude is very harmful.
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
I'll save this one for requoting in the future. Admins do shoot back, all of the time, they escalate things, the dance around direct questions leading to needless chatter.
When someone shoots back during their RfA, when you can expect them to be on their best behavior, then it's a big problem.
I thought it was just a mop and bucket, and no big deal, not a requirement for perfection.
It *is* a big deal. Admins can cause a lot of problems, and can solve problems too. The no-big-deal attitude is very harmful.
I'll save that one for quoting, too, next time someone says it is no big deal or calls it just janitorial work.
Admins can and do cause problems, and they can, especially when using admin tools that plain jane and john editors don't have access to, cause problems that lead to no end of discussion. Especially when admins seem to be misusing tools for other than their intended purpose.
I agree, it is a big deal, but carry it to shooting going on in either direction on an RfA.
KP
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
I'll save this one for requoting in the future. Admins do shoot back, all of the time, they escalate things, the dance around direct questions leading to needless chatter.
When someone shoots back during their RfA, when you can expect them to be on their best behavior, then it's a big problem.
I thought it was just a mop and bucket, and no big deal, not a requirement for perfection.
It *is* a big deal. Admins can cause a lot of problems, and can solve problems too. The no-big-deal attitude is very harmful.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This quote is no longer in context. Who is the she that is being referred to and what is the attack that is being mentioned?
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
When someone shoots back during their RfA, when you can expect them to be on their best behavior, then it's a big problem.
Whereas afterwards, it's OK?
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
When someone shoots back during their RfA, when you can expect them to be on their best behavior, then it's a big problem.
Whereas afterwards, it's OK?
No, the point was that if an admin doesn't behave well when it's absolutely essential that they do so, it's likely that they'll behave even worse when they aren't under the microscope. Please don't troll.
Then you don't get it. For those of us who are on the receiving end, they are *always* "under the microscope". So this plays out to "once they become admins, the other admins aren't going to monitor them."
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Then you don't get it. For those of us who are on the receiving end, they are *always* "under the microscope". So this plays out to "once they become admins, the other admins aren't going to monitor them."
You're not under any "microscope" at all, and you weren't on the "receiving end" of anything, despite your constant protestations. You sockpuppeted in some pretty awful ways, after you felt some vague and still ill-defined injustice had been done you. I'm not going to go into the other issues involved with your behavior, which, as you have acknowledged, have little to do with Wikipedia anyway.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Then you don't get it. For those of us who are on the receiving end, they are *always* "under the microscope". So this plays out to "once they become admins, the other admins aren't going to monitor them."
You're not under any "microscope" at all, and you weren't on the "receiving end" of anything, despite your constant protestations. You sockpuppeted in some pretty awful ways, after you felt some vague and still ill-defined injustice had been done you. I'm not going to go into the other issues involved with your behavior, which, as you have acknowledged, have little to do with Wikipedia anyway.
Oops, sorry, I mistook this for a post from Blu Aardvark, who I was responding to on another thread. Apologies.
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
I'll save this one for requoting in the future. Admins do shoot back, all of the time, they escalate things, the dance around direct questions leading to needless chatter.
When someone shoots back during their RfA, when you can expect them to be on their best behavior, then it's a big problem.
Unless, of course, she thought the RFA was dead in the water, so she might as well go down swinging.
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
I'll save this one for requoting in the future. Admins do shoot back, all of the time, they escalate things, the dance around direct questions leading to needless chatter.
When someone shoots back during their RfA, when you can expect them to be on their best behavior, then it's a big problem.
Unless, of course, she thought the RFA was dead in the water, so she might as well go down swinging.
There was no reason to assume that at all, and it's not a very promising response for someone trying to gain a position of trust.
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Unless, of course, she thought the RFA was dead in the water, so she might as well go down swinging.
There was no reason to assume that at all, and it's not a very promising response for someone trying to gain a position of trust.
Humans aren't necessarily rational at all times. If she thought her RFA was dead in the water, she's no longer trying to gain a position of trust.
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Unless, of course, she thought the RFA was dead in the water, so she might as well go down swinging.
There was no reason to assume that at all, and it's not a very promising response for someone trying to gain a position of trust.
Humans aren't necessarily rational at all times. If she thought her RFA was dead in the water, she's no longer trying to gain a position of trust.
If, if, if. All sorts of good faith extended in only one direction, James.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Unless, of course, she thought the RFA was dead in the water, so she might as well go down swinging.
There was no reason to assume that at all, and it's not a very promising response for someone trying to gain a position of trust.
Humans aren't necessarily rational at all times. If she thought her RFA was dead in the water, she's no longer trying to gain a position of trust.
If, if, if. All sorts of good faith extended in only one direction, James.
I am personally extending (presumably) her the same good faith regarding why she hasn't answered the question yet that I am to you for having asked it in the first place.
The easiest explanation for all of this is that you didn't think that asking it would be stepping into a wider policy minefield, and she's a reasonable person who just feels violated by having been caught out by the question.
In both the case of the question being asked, and not being answered, I think that reasonable people can AGF, but also take notice of the event and responses.
In Charolette's case, it's hard to support someone who persistently didn't answer the question once posed. It's not "Have you stopped beating your husband", which would deserve no answer.
In your case, I am concerned that you and SlimVirgin are not yet so far publically apparently accepting the concern which has been expressed over the incident. You're acting as defensively as Charolette is.
Fred commented that he was sure that you and SlimVirgin would learn from this and modify your future behaviour. I trust his judgement, and your and SlimVirgin's historical records. But so far..
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
All sorts of good faith extended in only one direction, James.
False, Jay. I'm sorry that because I am criticising your actions, you think that I didn't assumed good faith. I did.