[WikiEN-l] for years been promoting admins who go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users

[FT2]

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