On WP it does not require sainthood, only keeping the project and its
problems in proper perspective--and awareness of the extent to which
web communications conduces to unintended abruptness.
I think we have enough people on WP that can manage it; I don't think
any person would now pass RfA if anything in their history indicated
they couldn't cope with that. If one loses the ability, one needs a
wikibreak.
On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:01:36 -0500, "David
Goodman"
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> There are two types of response I get when I
do something that
> someone thinks is wrong:
> (1) I think that was wrong, would you mind taking another look?
> (2) How dare you abuse your administrative powers in this way, I
> demand that you undo this immediately and apologise profusely.
> Now intellectually I *know* I should treat both responses the same
> way, but I am not that kind of person, and I don't think very many
> people are that kind of person.
Guy, I know that many other admins are that kind
of person,
especially among the newer ones. In the real world too, those who can
listen to 2) and not get upset over it are the ones with a chance of
getting some degree of co-operation and possibly reform.
Sure. And they are also the ones who get canonised, because give
anyone enough of (2) and they will usually also lose patience.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l