On 14 June 2014 15:08, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
...
Hi Richard, thanks for specifying a reason for
moderation. Could you
define what you intend "limited time" to be, particularly as I believe
there is no public appeals process. A month of moderation given
"acceptable use"?
...
that from *my human memory*, some current or past
English Wikipedia
Arbcom members have used the word "butthurt" to describe other
editors. In comparison the far more disruptive and offensive word
...
for civility, it would seem odd to moderate
Russavia's access to this
list for using a word that the most trusted of Wikipedia contributors
use themselves, and defend the use by others, when they interpret the
civility guidelines. Perhaps you might think of re-stating the
rationale?
I have taken a moment to find a relevant reference to back up my
memory, see [1] which shows Salvio giuliano vigorously defending his
use of the word "butthurt". Salvio giulano is a current English
Wikipedia Arbcom member. I have not bothered to research further use
of this word by other current or past Arbcom members.
I think most readers of this list will find it odd to see that
"butthurt" used in a mild and colourful context on this list by
Russavia, gets highlighted and becomes a matter of objection by
Newyorkbrad, a current Arbcom member, resulting in Russavia being
moderated for an unspecified duration, while another Arbcom member has
previously stated that his use of the same rude word is perfectly
appropriate and legitimate public behaviour for himself in the rough
and tumble of frank discussion.
Could the rationale for moderation be restated please, so that
Russavia better understands what was unacceptable about his post here,
and could we please have an idea as to what duration moderation is
expected?
Links
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/…
PS I have not discussed this email with Russavia, nor has Russavia
canvassed me about it.
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae