[WikiEN-l] Admins shouldn't shoot back

[George Herbert]

On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18/06/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/18/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Unless, of course, she thought the RFA was dead in the water, so she
> > > > might as well go down swinging.
> > >
> > > There was no reason to assume that at all, and it's not a very
> > > promising response for someone trying to gain a position of trust.
> >
> > Humans aren't necessarily rational at all times. If she thought her
> > RFA was dead in the water, she's no longer trying to gain a position
> > of trust.
>
> If, if, if. All sorts of good faith extended in only one direction, James.

I am personally extending (presumably) her the same good faith
regarding why she hasn't answered the question yet that I am to you
for having asked it in the first place.

The easiest explanation for all of this is that you didn't think that
asking it would be stepping into a wider policy minefield, and she's a
reasonable person who just feels violated by having been caught out by
the question.

In both the case of the question being asked, and not being answered,
I think that reasonable people can AGF, but also take notice of the
event and responses.

In Charolette's case, it's hard to support someone who persistently
didn't answer the question once posed.  It's not "Have you stopped
beating your husband", which would deserve no answer.

In your case, I am concerned that you and SlimVirgin are not yet so
far publically apparently accepting the concern which has been
expressed over the incident.  You're acting as defensively as
Charolette is.

Fred commented that he was sure that you and SlimVirgin would learn
from this and modify your future behaviour.  I trust his judgement,
and your and SlimVirgin's historical records.  But so far..


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com