Begin forwarded message:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Date: July 2, 2005 9:45:36 AM MDT To: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@energon.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs
On Jul 2, 2005, at 8:32 AM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
"You are a hypocrite" is a personal attack. "You seem to apply a lenient standard to yourself and a strict standard to others" is a description of behavior, particularly if you cite examples.
Those mean the exact same thing! You just gave the definition of a hypocrite. You're making a meaningless distinction here and I seriously doubt you follow your own logic. Are you saying you've never called someone a troll or accused them of using sock puppets? Can you honestly say that you've been using a very long-winded, politically correct version of a troll accusation?
And I do give examples, but you seem to keep ignoring that repeatedly because it suits you to ignore it.
You REALLY do not have the authority to make an arbitrary distinction like that as it's outlined in *zero* policies.
What it says, at [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Don.27t_do_it]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Don. 27t_do_it) is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Let's suppose you are trying to add content and someone is reverting it on the basis that it is "personal research" "POV" "unsourced" or whatever. You look at their edits and find they are doing the same thing or a number of other things equally bad and are vigorously defending their actions behind a smokescreen of righteousness. This is all publicly visible on Wikipedia and can be demonstrated by diffs. Going to a person's talk page or the talk page of an article and discussing this double standard is not a personal attack. A bald statement that someone is a "hypocrite" is.
I have sinned and doubtless will sin again; however, I think I'm doing better; partly because looking at all the ways people get it wrong and serving as a spokesman for Wikipedia policies does get me to thinking about my own behavior. When you find yourself about to do something you have banned someone for you can sometimes pay enough attention that you don't do it.
As to authority, doubtless Wikipedia policies can be expressed more clearly, doubtless decisions of the Arbitration Committee could be both plainer and more comprehensive, but Jimbo and through him the Arbitration Committee do have authority to make reasonable decisions. Please keep in mind that you are only being limited in the range of voluntary work you chose to do on a particular website.
This politically correct business is worth a comment. If I succeed in following Wikipedia policy or correctly restating it I am in some sense "correct" in that I have followed the "party line." That is what I am supposed to do. I am not in a state of sin because I describe in detail behavior which could be summarized as an invidious characterization.
Fred
What it says, at [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Don.27t_do_it]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Don. 27t_do_it) is "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
Are you seriously now suggesting that anything that commenting on the contributor automatically amounts to a personal attack? Ignoring for a moment that that would make it impossible to address someone's bad behavior (which clearly isn't banned), you already gave an example of something which describes someone's behavior that you don't consider a personal attack.
This would have to be the very first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that that's either de jure or even de facto policy.
Going to a person's talk page or the talk page of an article and discussing this double standard is not a personal attack. A bald statement that someone is a "hypocrite" is.
Are you kidding me? Do you realize how extremely rare that kind of extreme politically correct diplomacy is employed, even with admins? Even those who filed the RfA against me critcized my behavior on article talk pages. Admins do this on a regular basis and they don't even make the slightest attempt to hide it.
If I find a dozen examples of an admin doing in a month, will you remove their admin status or punish them in some way? That seems doubtful as this is something they regularly do and is considered to be ok by most.
It's also silly to make such a black and white distinction between behavior and argumentation as they are directly tied together. Someone using hypocritical logic to defend their POV and being a hypocrite are one in the same, making it both argumentative and behaviora.
I have sinned and doubtless will sin again; however, I think I'm doing better; partly because looking at all the ways people get it wrong and serving as a spokesman for Wikipedia policies does get me to thinking about my own behavior. When you find yourself about to do something you have banned someone for you can sometimes pay enough attention that you don't do it.
Yeah and there's no accountability for that. If anyone gives an example of an admin doing it, they're just told to get over it. I could find numerous examples of any given admin critcizing behavionr outside of user talk pages, but it would be shrugged off in the same regard. It's a MASSIVE double standard.
There is a policy: [[Wikipedia:Civility]].
You said 'in addition to' Wikipedia:Civility. In any case, I already addressed this in a message to David Gerard. The policy is far, far too broad to be enforceable. According to Wikipedia:Civility, you are not allowed to do anything which causes stress or conflict, which are unavoidable on any remotely controversial article and even on many non-controversial articles due to disagreement about how it should be written.
By POV pushing and engaing in constant strawman arguments, the parties in my dispute were causing conflict and stress. Of course, they aren't reprimanded for that.
It is considered part a "key policy:" "Respect other users."
Yes, and that's entirely subjective. I consider AlexR's and Axon's constant strawman arguments against me and refusal to read/address parts of my argument extremely disrespectful. I also consider you LYING about me not citing sources where needed in order to get a ban passed on me to be disrespectful.
I've had direct criticism of my behavior and been called names in another article too, which were directly responded to by an admin (ambi), but she responded to agree with the personal criticsm, and didn't bother to reprimand the guy in the slightest. That can hardly be qualified as a little slip up.
That's entirely inconsistent if they don't even so much as make a comment saying it's wrong. Let's not be fooled into thinking that admins are actually being fair with me.
How much evidence do I need to compile against an admin and especially an arbitrator of criticizing someone's behavior outside of user talk pages in order to revoke their status?
It is enforced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#How_are_polic...
It's enforced, but it's not possibly to enforce something objectively which is so open to interpretation.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------