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(a)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/Pseudoscien…
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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.