[Foundation-l] Human judgment

[Elisabeth Anderl]

Dear Sam, dear all,
as I stated already, I personally don't think that human judgement can be
generalized.

There are rules and the stewards have to obey them, certainly they are
interpreted by every human being slightly different, but I think we agree
that a steward is not in the position to judge and to
decide<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Don.27t_decide>(please
read the link target what is understood by "decide") (if there is no
emergency).

Please note that I am almost certain, that if he would have been desysoped,
there would now be other voices claiming here that this was a totally wrong
thing to do.

Imho discussing this here is therefore a waste of time, if You or anyone
wants that something is being done or someones user-rights being removed,
please feel free to open a RFC, as suggested, to grant a wider community the
chance to express their opinion in a more public and accessible place,
thank You,

best regards.

2008/1/8, Samuel Henderson <samueljhenderson at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Elisabeth,
>
> Well, my reason for changing the subject was to refocus the discussion
> from
> a specific case to a general issue which affects all Wikimedians.  Like
> most
> who have commented here, I am in no position to judge the particulars of
> the
> ru.wikibooks situation, as I lack both the requisite linguistic ability
> and
> the requisite background knowledge.  I can only say that it *appeared,
> *from
> the information posted here,* *to be a case of egregiously abusive,
> intimidating behavior by someone treating a WMF project as a personal
> fiefdom; and that the further *appearance *of inaction in the face of such
> profoundly unacceptable behavior was sufficiently troubling to prompt some
> reflection.
>
> It would not serve my purpose, and was not my intent, to question your
> judgment (or anyone else's).  It is however necessary to question a
> culture
> in which -- as at any rate it appeared, from the remarks posted here --
> stewards do not feel qualified to exercise their own judgment in the
> absence
> of a community request (even when such a request is unlikely to be
> forthcoming).  *If* true, this suggests that very serious problems exist
> in
> our organizational culture.
>
> In any event, the traffic level since my post has served to remind me that
> this list is not suited to nuanced discussions of, well, anything; at
> least
> not for those of us who subscribe to the digest.  IMO this is unfortunate.
> But so be it, for so it is; I shall return to my lurking.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sam
>
>
> > Although this is the wrong thread:
> > The human -my- judgement was: reverting the one revert (one revert imho
> is
> > no editwar) and warn him once more, then if he had reverted it again, I
> > would have desysoped him and restored the Monobook again.
> >
> > I doubt You would normally block a user in Your project after one revert
> > if
> > it is not obvious vandalism, if the user might not be aware that he is
> > doing
> > wrong and gives a reason for his revert in the summary?
> >
> > Please don't cut that off the case we are talking about, if You are
> really
> > talking about human judgement You can't generalize it imho, it is case
> > specific.
> >
> > Best regards.
> _______________________________________________
>