[WikiEN-l] Arbitration progress report #2

[Sascha Noyes]

On Friday 23 January 2004 05:51 pm, Sean Barrett wrote:
> > If you think that personal attacks on other wikipedians are OK, then
> > please advocate for the "no personal attacks" rule to get repealed.
> >
> > I advocate the enforcement of the agreed-upon rules that are specified in
> > [[Wikipedia:Policy]], which happens to include [[Wikipedia:No personal
> > attacks]]. Your characterisation of the desire of wikipedians that
> > personal attacks should halt as 'Mommy, he called me xxx" and "whinging"
> > is both condescending and illogical, given that "no personal attacks"
> > happens to be a wikipedia policy. I have quoted it before, and I shall
> > quote it again (from [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]):
>
> Sorry, no.  I am not going to try to change the policy.  Rather, when
> a case comes before the arbitration committee that consist of nothing
> more substantial than name-calling, I will recuse myself.

So what you're saying is that you don't want to enforce [[Wikipedia:No 
personal attacks]]. So who will enforce this rule? As I have stated before, 
we should either enforce our rules or stop paying lipservice to them and 
scrap them. 

> My characterization is "illogical"?  Non-sequitur -- I'm not a Vulcan.
> "Condescending"?  You're absolutely right.  After all, my
> /six-year-old/ doesn't need my help to handle simple name-calling.

I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your 
condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.

We have made the choice that it is preferential to have policies concerning 
etiquette. The primary reason for this choice is the fact that valuable 
contributors will be driven away by people who grossly violate common 
decency. I care enough about wikipedia to keep haggeling with people on these 
mailing lists to enforce policies that are beneficial to wikipedia. 
Personally, I act on gross violations of etiquette by ignoring the people who 
engage in such behaviour. I believe that the persons who wrote policies such 
as "no personal attacks" believe, as do I, that not everyone reacts to gross 
violations of etiquette as your "/six-year-old/" and I do. Retaining valuable 
contributors with a thin skin is why enforcement of rules such as "no 
personal attacks" is indeed a good idea. The only argument you have given 
against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious. 

So would it be correct to conclude that you either you think that nobody will 
be driven away by personal attacks, or it is not worth your time to retain 
these contributors? I will also put to you my opinion that in cases where 
there has been a gross violation of policies such as "no personal attacks", 
all the arbitration committee will have to do is the following: 
1. Verify the veracity of the claim that a policy was grossly violated
If (1) is found to be true, then either:
2.1 Inform the violator that if he/she should engage in such behaviour again, 
they will be banned.
Or, if the previous violations were found to have been sufficiently extreme:
2.2 Ban the violator 
I doubt that this proceedure would take too much time.

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
-- 
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from 
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc