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

Sat Nov 11 14:11:30 UTC 2006

On 11/11/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I don't know about all of it, but I do know that "Don't be a
> dick" isn't ad hominem. It's a guideline on Wikipedia. I don't know
> the specific page, but it's basically talking about how you should try
> to refrain from being intentionally unpleasant, or that if you realise
> you are  being unpleasant, you should try to be more pleasant, or
> whatever. It may seem a bit blunt for someone on WP to tell you to
> stop "being a dick", but this is one of the few cases where such
> language isn't considered rude.
>
> As far as being incompetent... I don't know what to say. I'm not
> familiar with the particular case, and I don't wish to get involved
> really, but from the way you described it, it certainly seems contrary
> to policy. Whether or not you are incompetent is entirely irrelevant.
> Users should engage in civil structured debate with one another and
> provide sources to back up each point as neessary.
>
> Ideally, the second person should be entirely absent from such
> discussions. There is no need to refer to the other person(s) with
> whom you are debating, since you are debating the topic and arguing
> each point on its own merits, NOT arguing against the person by their
> particular attributes.
>
> Having said that, I would like to reiterate that I am not familiar
> with this case.
>
> I would also like to say that people in positions of authority within
> the structure of Wikimedia are allowed to get away with a lot of crap.
> Usually, though, they earn it by doing lots of good stuff so that
> people are willing to give them a bit of leeway.
>
> In a RFA vote, it was once said by a bureaucrat that my reason for
> opposing was invalid and that my vote could be discounted. That in and
> of itself is not concerning, but said person also basically called me
> an idiot. He did apologise eventually, but he (and many others in
> positions of power) still have the same hostile and disrespectful
> approach.
>
> However, Wikipedia in general does tend to attract the more socially
> inept of society, for reasons that probably don't need to be stated
> explicitly. Take a look at the Wikipedia facebook, do these look like
> people who would have been the "popular kids" in high school?
> No, looking at it I get the image that we are all a bunch of societal
> rejects. Wikipedia has more men than women, (I believe) more liberals
> than conservatives... and we tend to attract people who are very
> passionate about their areas of interest, and if you have ever been in
> a nerd argument, you know how seemingly ridiculous topics (viz Gdansk
> vs Danzig) can make for very heated arguments which can break down
> into shouting matches. The same thing sometimes happens in academia.
> Adults can get even nastier when they're arguing about their "serious"
> topics than teenagers can when they're arguing about their hobbies.
>
> Mark
>
> On 11/11/06, Ian Tresman <it at knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>


-- 
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.