[Wikipedia-l] Indefinite ban problem

[Ronald Chmara]

On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Ian Tresman wrote:
> Is there a policy requirement for editors and Admin to (a)
> substantiate their "opinions" against another editor

No, no requirement, at least not in day to day discussions, but it  
often certainly helps to explain one's self using examples to  
substantiate an argument.

> (b) reply to their questions?

Most *certainly* not. That would be devastating. Considering  
Wikipedia is a volunteer project, *requiring* a reply from our  
editors and admins to every single question posed to them would  
drastically increase the amount of time wasted on trolls, kids who  
don't want to do their homework, POV-pushers, wiki-litigators, and  
other kinds of attention and debate-mongers.

Wikipedia is a not a debate society. All evidence to the contrary  
notwithstanding. ;)

> For example, if an Admin claims I am "pushing pseudoscience", is
> there a requirement for them to provide actual examples of where I
> might be doing this, and at the very least, reply to my requests to  
> do so?

No.

However, it might help the editor/Janitor to provide a URL, if they  
wish to characterize a behavior, such as showing some of your  
consistent editorial interests and edits (as well as any possible  
contentious editing, flame warring, whatever):
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/iantresman>  
(paging through the last 500 entries gives quite the eye opener about  
your history, interests, and working style).

Or, for that matter, mine:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ronabop> (Same  
thing about me, diving through my edits, and my edit history,  
provides more evidence and information about my wikipedia interests  
and working style than a single argument and URL ever could)

Experienced editors/Janitors can then read, unfiltered, a page (or  
ten) of edit histories, and determine the ability, bias, and wiki- 
skills of the disputed editor/Janitor involved.

Think of it as a reverse RfA process, where, *because* all activity  
is logged, each deciding  editor/Janitor can then make up their own  
mind about over-simplified (and possibly ad hominem) statements such  
as 'alt medicine POV crusader', 'anti-religion SP', 'trolling neo- 
nazi holocaust apologist', 'pushing pseudoscience', 'medicine edit  
warring disruptor', or any number of other three to five word  
simplistic characterizations, and decide if such characterizations  
are *accurately* being used to describe fairly complex actions  
regarding histories, editing patters, editorial biases, etc., or are  
uncivil attacks on a person (as compared to their contributions).

While it certainly *can* make it easier on the decision-making-teams  
(indeed, the community as a whole) to be provided with a few juicy  
bits to *exemplify* a particular behavior, since juicy bits can  
easily be taken wholly out of context, it behooves members of the  
decision making groups (and its stakeholders) to do some background  
digging on their own, to truly get "the big picture"... be the reason  
an increase in duties/privileges, or decrease in same.

Now, further down the process, an ArbCom generally *does* use  
examples for producing their Findings of Fact, but each and every  
argument which was made in the opening and Evidence gathering process  
by an editor/Janitor is not necessarily addressed in the final  
decision, but also, each argument *may* be used for recommended actions.

If you re-read:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ 
Pseudoscience>

You can find a great number of pieces of evidence/examples respective  
to your case presented at:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ 
Pseudoscience/Evidence>

..as you should well already know, because you've edited there, and  
Janitors/Admins and editors have already also placed numerous  
examples there, regarding their individual opinions, and examples, of  
your contributions and editorial work.

-Ronabop