[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

[Ryan Delaney]

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:58 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.
>
>
>
Okay, yes, I was misreading you, and that's the bit I was missing. Thanks.
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.

- causa sui