On Sep 29, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Ian Tresman wrote:
Is there a policy requirement for editors and Admin to
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
For example, if an Admin claims I am "pushing
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
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):
(paging through the last 500 entries gives quite the eye opener about
your history, interests, and working style).
Or, for that matter, mine:
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:
You can find a great number of pieces of evidence/examples respective
to your case presented at:
..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.