I agree that Arbcom could and should act against any incivil admins. But I'm not convinced that incivil admins are a big part of our civility problem.
Nor do I think it is primarily about Vested contributors, who know that their contribution history means they can get away with rudeness that would be unacceptable in real life or for that manner from an admin. Though I concede we have a problem there which Arbcom could easily fix by desysopping the next admin who unblocks a vested contributor because they are so valuable that we have to tolerate their incivility. I think we have two major areas where we see newbies bitten: Firstly Newpage patrollers who template bomb or tag articles for deletion with little regard for our actual deletion policies and scant regard for the sensitivities of the contributors. You really don't have to spend long at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion to find some bad examples Secondly editors who revert unsourced edits from newbies without checking if they are true or tagging them with a citation needed tag for a few days. We currently have a policy of verifiable rather than verified, but many editors think it is the opposite, hence the conflicts when editors who think they can change things without quoting a source have their edits reverted by other editors who think they do. My preferred solution would be to change our editing interface so that we have the reverse issue, editors who think they need to cite their source patrolled by editors who help the newbies who add info without citing sources. WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
