[Wikipedia-l] Arbitrators exempt from WP:CIVIL & WP:LIVING?

Sat Nov 11 11:14:36 UTC 2006

Must Arbitrators abide by WP:CIVIL & WP:LIVING, or are they exempt 
during an arbitration case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed_decision#ScienceApologist_is_uncivil

1. I am embroiled in an arbitration case in which one of the editors 
has been cited of being uncivil against me (with evidence provided), 
using Ad hominems such being "incompetent", "close-minded ignorance", 
advised me not to "be a dick", etc.

An Arbitrator has disagreed (no problem), but has then commented that 
it "Looks like a case of calling a spade a spade", which may Oxford 
English Dictionary defines as:

	"to call things by their real names, without any euphemism or 
mincing of matters; to use plain or blunt language; to be 
straightforward to the verge of rudeness."

To me this reads as if the Arbitrator is justifying the language, 
because it is considered accurate.

2. The same editor is citing as using "strong negative language" 
against living people (cf. WP:LIVING), and the same Arbitrator has 
made the same comment.

3. The same Arbitrator has also noted that "I do not believe Ian 
Tresman's deserve good faith"

It does seem to me that if editors can not use such language at any 
time, then Arbitrators should be setting an example, otherwise 
editors will loose faith in the Arbitration process.

Regards,
Ian Tresman