On 14 June 2014 15:08, Fæ faewik@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/C...
PS I have not discussed this email with Russavia, nor has Russavia canvassed me about it.
Fae