User:Fartherred

Fartherred has a bachelor of metallurgical engineering degree and a long history of interest in colonizing space.

Civility
Another user pointed out that in open wikis one cannot exclude other participants on account of irritating idiosyncrasies, minor faults, and differing points of view. Some people are indeed difficult to tolerate, but one must tolerate, be civil, and even better be friendly when one honestly can be friendly. If one fakes friendliness, one had better make an imitation indistinguishable from the real thing, which is beyond me. Phoniness turns people away. A practical suggestion came from Benjamin Franklin. Avoid directly contradicting others and avoid definite assertions. Instead, write "I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so." Start a discussion of a fellow wikipedian's error by bringing out those circumstances in which the erroneous statement most nearly applies, then suggest that the present concern is different and it seems that another point of view should be taken into account. Following this plan, when one finds one's own error it is easier to accept and there should be more success in winning others over to the better opinion when one is correct. Of course, in many cases correctness is not absolutely defined. So, disagree honestly and civilly. Then look for opportunities to agree with the same person with whom you have differed. No one is wrong all of the time. And do not fail to disagree with people solely because you have a friendly relation with them. One's friends need honest criticism too.

Begging indulgence
I hope that these ideas have not suffered much by putting them in my words and intermingling my thoughts. I find the ideas still more difficult to follow than to state. So excuse the failures in politeness that I have scattered around Wikipedia, and I will try to remember to think first and excuse others.

Equal Justice for All
The business of Wikipedia is giving equal treatment under Wikipedia policy to all ideas. They all must meet the same requirements for inclusion. Equal justice for contributors of those ideas is secondary and should not tie up administrative resources except as necessary to meet the first priority. If I were unjustly banned for life from contributing, what harm would that be to me? I have already received value from reading Wikipedia in excess of my financial contributions. The harm, if any, would be to Wikipedia.

Perfect Justice

 * That is what we get at the last judgment when God himself will amaze all with his perfect ability to set accounts right to a small fraction of a penny.  You say that you do not believe in God?  Then you do not believe in perfect justice either.  So either do not try to do work that God has reserved for himself alone, or do not try the impossible.  Do not tie up the system in trifles.
 * There must be some goal for RfAR other than Perfect Justice:

The Admin Fight Song

 * Ban 'em block 'em really sock 'em.
 * Teach 'em this little song.
 * When they come back lame with a different name,
 * They'd better know right from wrong.

Sympathy
So, admin, you feel sorry for the poor dear who had no intention to get so mired in problems. You would not have the job if you didn't, but sympathy can easily be excessive and misplaced. By the time things get to the Arbitration committee, the time for gentle suggestions is usually past and forceful measures like blocking and topic banning are considered. However, if our arbitration committee can come up with suggestions that promote quality editing without blocking anyone, they are permitted to try them in complete disregard of The Admin Fight Song.

Anonymous Users
So, Anonymous, you feel protected? Just remember: "You can hide from some of the people some of the time, but you can't hide from all of the people all of the time." The best policy is do nothing that you can't admit if you get caught. Especially, if you give someone a reason to know who you are, someone will know who you are.