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