This all sounds good, and comes off as straightforward -- and it would be, if we lived in a world where "Wiki norms" were clearly defined and universally accepted. The problem there is that there is a great deal of disagreement about what those norms should be, as well as what should be done in any particular case, and disagreement often leads to exactly the kind of personal judgments about character and fitness to be an admin in general that you make here: "These are the expected standards [chosen by me - who else?], we need people who exemplify them, and if you don't either because you can't or don't want to, you're not fit to be an admin and should be desysopped." That is profoundly alienating in practice, and you cannot win people over to your point of view when your approach is that authoritarian -- and it is the "norm" on AN/I. If I had to read minds, I'd guess that this is exactly what Jimbo was trying to avoid when he said adminiship is not a big deal. Obviously, it has become a big deal, but not for any good reason, and you're going to continue to lose valuable contributors as long as this continues to be the standard. - causa sui _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

But I think the key norms are universally accepted. Take "No personal attacks" and "civility" as two examples. Differences may exist whether a particular matter is or isnt an attack or uncivil, whether to act or ignore it, and a number of long-term users and admins have at times posted in a way that clearly breaches those and do not seem to hold them in high regard judging by their conduct. Despite all the breaches of these, in 10 years I have yet to see any communal proposal gain any kind of traction to agree that incivility is okay, that rudeness or attacks are sometimes allowed, or that vested/long term users should be held to a different standard than anyone else. Nothing to that effect has ever been proposed seriously nor gained traction. Why? Because we don't believe in those things. The belief in a common high standard is universal, even if some users don't act up to it. What we have trouble with is people who _know_ these are universal norms but still seem to think "who cares" about them. The first problem is basic attitudes - people who know what is agreed but flagrantly ignore it when it suits them, or selectively apply it. The second problem beyond that is the problem of "fiddling while Rome burns". While we potter round discussing if, perhaps, such and such an incident was uncivil or BITEy, and whether anyone feels consensus exists to act, the user affected may be discouraged and leave. That's fine, we want to go careful and not be over extreme. Again we count on users to act to a high standard and enact the norms of the community. if they do - and the norms are pretty uncontroversial - then these issues would largely be resolved by the involved person themself. 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 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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:18 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)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 > >

It seems like the trick is to work toward implementing this as an actual cultural ideology, which it certainly is not on AN/I right now.