Thread:Ryoung122/@comment-1272640-20170906223854/@comment-27038319-20170909174210

Pluto 2, I'm surprised to see you trying to create discord on the Gerontology Wiki - not an action that will lead to much respect or appreciation.

While I acknowledge (and agree) that we should be able to question decisions taken by any administrative team - whether it should be that of the Gerontology Wiki, the GRG, or some other random team - I do not condone the way in which you are doing this. Robert was asked to be an administrator here, implying that others felt he was the best choice. An obvious one, as he's been in the field of gerontology for a long time - longer than you have been living.

Now, as I have understood, Robert was asked to put an end to disruptive behaviour on the Gerontology Wiki as it was attacked by so-called "trolls". From the way I can see it, Robert and other admins/moderators have done a good job stabilising this Wiki and trying to free it from disruptive members. This is still an ongoing process, and it means that there are strict rules in place... rules that are nonetheless easy to follow up on. Of course, we might not all like those rules, but sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the greater good. It really is not that difficult to understand that personal opinions make way for what validated data is saying, for instance - and even this is subject to change once new data comes to light and replaces the older validations. (Note, for instance, that it took until 2010 before Mr Izumi's claim was retracted... change takes time, and Rome wasn't built in one day either.)

In other words, what I am trying to say is: accept that there are always multiple points of view and that there is no definitive right or wrong. The admin team here has taken decisions that they felt were best to steer this Wiki away from disruptive behaviour, and so far this seems to be working. Even if we don't agree with all of their decisions, we'll have to accept and respect them if we wish to improve this Wiki even more. I've known Robert for quite a while now - since 2012 - and if there's one thing I can tell you about him is that he's much more open for a discussion if someone approaches him in a respectful manner. The way you are approaching him now is not going to make him change anything soon, I can guess.

Lastly, I realise you are very much aware of the fact that I have, at times, been critical of Robert's choices (I would sometimes do things differently, yes) but Robert and I always talk about this in a private, respectful manner - and then I do understand his choices better. It still doesn't mean I always agree with them after such a chat (in fact, I sometimes passionately disagree!) but forward progress sometimes requires accepting someone else's ideas and realising that your own ideas will be discussed another time - when that time is more right. It would certainly do you and your image well if you started realising this too. Moreover, the tone with which you are addressing Robert in this thread (a rather aggressive and imperative tone, as I've also seen on the 110 Club before) only perpetuates the idea that you're a know-it-all who is unwilling to accept any other points of view but her own - certainly not something we could use in any organisation that requires teamwork. Therefore, I would strongly urge you to work on improving your demeanor - you'd be surprised to discover how much nicer people are to you if you are nice to them.