Good rules and procedures to protect "Bold-enough" editors

The last 1-2 months events demonstrated that our great and exciting Wikipedia grew out of its virtual reality frames. I even may name it now Live Wikipedia. I think that an editor acting in the virtual reality of Wikipedia may now be influenced easily in the real, actual life, and vice versa. Moreover, an editor induced by the benign intentions and good will that he/she applies them for the community's benefit may easily accused of malice. And, when I happened to find myself in this situation, I started to hesitate, if I shall stay here with my editing and writing new articles. I am still unsure, if I will go on as efficiently, as I did before. When I add the content I am welcomed, but when the time came and I wanted to discuss my understanding of the extraordinary problem, I was blocked and accused in trolling. I should write here that the talkativeness is not my trait. My contribution in Wikipedia at 75 and + % consists of article editing and writing. Thus, I am sure the rules shall be developed further to make Wikipedia safe place for article writers and editors. I enjoy the project and people that I meet in virtual here, and I use the articles and data in my research in real life. So, I am sure we may do it and protect our community and editors, and I will be glad to participate in the editing of the corresponding rules. Best wishes to all, --91.210.41.141 20:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It was written by me, --Zara-arush 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

From poking the English wiki, i guess you jumped in one hot area of the Wiki which could not be helped because when history text books differ too much between countries, problems are bounds to happen.

Now what can the Strategic Planning can and can't do for you?

• Can create a visible status for new editors so you won't be blamed for what you don't know.
• Can create a visible status for senior editors so you can refer to them for guidance and avoid traps, pitfalls & cross-fires that abound in such editing area
• Can create a better system to reach comprise & consensus thus reducing tensions & clashes in problematic areas & subjects
• Can't guaranty that what you think to be the accurate truth will be the Wikipedia's reality especially if others editors have their own different truth.

Thanks. I was not precise in the description of the matter, because I was not the "main character" in the story. So, I like the third point in your list: "Can create a better system to reach comprise & consensus thus reducing tensions & clashes in problematic areas & subjects". I would like to be helpful in working on the corresponding rules and procedures that may be used by the whole community as a guide irrespective of the language of editing and even the history texts, because I am sure a sound mind is able to comprehend and analyze any type of information, and the community shall fix rules and procedures for the users may react adequately in typical situations, even complicated. What I mean? If an editor announces that there are violations of the main principles of Wikipedia and the community shall stop these violations, any other non-apathetic user has the right to participate in discussion, and none has the right to persecute the editors, who did their best to explain what is going on and what is wrong with these violations. Moreover, the conflict may not be transferred in reality. Then, none has the right to ban an editor, who tried to ground his opinion on what was wrong with these violations and what shall be the attitude of the community, and what are the basic principles for the valuation of the violations. Because the activities in Wikipedia (as I imagine for myself) are joint and based on the intercommunication among those, who are interested in the matter, we have the right to exchange opinions, and explain one another, what is right and what is wrong. If I know something that I consider important and reliable, why should I stay silent and not inform about it the others, who are involved in the matter? It is a general description of what I worry about. So, I would like to join to the group, who work on the rules, relating to users' activities, and recommendations on how to make the atmosphere in Wikipedia more friendly and safe for editors and article writers.--Zara-arush 17:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact improving consensus-building processes is one of the Recommendations.

Task force/Recommendations/Community health 7

While proposed processes may be a bit excessive for your issue, it would help nevertheless to deescalate the tension. In some area editors are in sort of Trench warfare stance ready to jump at anyone that cross their imaginary line which can only hurt Wikipedia in the long term.

Thanks for previous replies:

1. Can create a visible status for senior editors so you can refer to them for guidance and avoid traps, pitfalls & cross-fires that abound in such editing area
2. Can create a better system to reach comprise & consensus thus reducing tensions & clashes in problematic areas & subjects

I guess, I would like to have someone who may be helpful with explaining what is wrong in my statements that sometimes get the effect opposite to the expected by myself. And I think, we need more rules relating to the process of discussion. There are several repeating situations (discussion of a new article in the process of its writing, discussions of the article, nominated for deletion, for the status of features, for murging, etc). What the author is obliged, at what stage, what shall not demand of the author, when other editors may interfere, etc. I am sure the criticism is OK, but the pure criticism is bad, if the user only criticises and does not offer any solution or improvement.--Zara-arush 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)