I should say, the fact we are willing to discuss not assume is fine. Obviosuly the harm and upset arising is not.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:18 AM, FT2 <[email protected]> wrote: (Snip) > The second problem beyond that is the problem of "fiddling while Rome > burns". While we potter round discussing if, perhaps, such and such an > incident was uncivil or BITEy, and whether anyone feels consensus exists to > act, the user affected may be discouraged and leave. That's fine, we want to > go careful and not be over extreme. Again we count on users to act to a high > standard and enact the norms of the community. if they do - and the norms > are pretty uncontroversial - then these issues would largely be resolved by > the involved person themself. > > 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. > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
