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

Sat Nov 11 14:17:34 UTC 2006

Reading over my last e-mail, I get the feeling that it was a bit more
anti-establishment than was intended.

Yes, some people in positions of authority are perhaps a bit too blunt
or confrontational. Nobody's perfect. But they also have lots of
responsibilities that they do take care of. It's not as if there are
"perfect" people standing by just waiting to replace them. You take
what you can get. Wikipedia is all-volunteer. As long as they aren't
complete asshats, people who can do a good job are trusted with power
here in spite of their shortcomings. Bad behaviour on the part of
authority figures is only reprimanded when it is bad enough that it
interferes with the progress of the project in general. You may not
like it if an arbiter essentially insulted you, but really, how
important is that in the scheme of things? By whinging, you are not
helping your case. Wikipedia does not appreciate whinging, no matter
how valid it is, because we get so much whinging that is, well,
invalid.

Mark

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.