Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs

[Fred Bauder]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Date: July 2, 2005 9:45:36 AM MDT
> To: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Personal attacks and low EQs
>
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2005, at 8:32 AM, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
>
>>> "You are a hypocrite" is a personal attack. "You seem to apply a
>>> lenient standard to yourself and a strict standard to others" is a
>>> description of behavior, particularly if you cite examples.
>>>
>>
>> Those mean the exact same thing!  You just gave the definition of a
>> hypocrite.  You're making a meaningless distinction here and I
>> seriously doubt you follow your own logic.  Are you saying you've
>> never called someone a troll or accused them of using sock puppets?
>> Can you honestly say that you've been using a very long-winded,
>> politically correct version of a troll accusation?
>>
>> And I do give examples, but you seem to keep ignoring that repeatedly
>> because it suits you to ignore it.
>>
>> You REALLY do not have the authority to make an arbitrary distinction
>> like that as it's outlined in *zero* policies.
>
> What it says, at [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Don.27t_do_it]]  
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Don. 
> 27t_do_it) is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Let's  
> suppose you are trying to add content and someone is reverting it  
> on the basis that it is "personal research" "POV" "unsourced" or  
> whatever. You look at their edits and find they are doing the same  
> thing or a number of other things equally bad and are vigorously  
> defending their actions behind a smokescreen of righteousness. This  
> is all publicly visible on Wikipedia and can be demonstrated by  
> diffs. Going to a person's talk page or the talk page of an article  
> and discussing this double standard is not a personal attack. A  
> bald statement that someone is a "hypocrite" is.
>
> I have sinned and doubtless will sin again; however, I think I'm  
> doing better; partly because looking at all the ways people get it  
> wrong and serving as a spokesman for Wikipedia policies does get me  
> to thinking about my own behavior. When you find yourself about to  
> do something you have banned someone for you can sometimes pay  
> enough attention that you don't do it.
>
> As to authority, doubtless Wikipedia policies can be expressed more  
> clearly, doubtless decisions of the Arbitration Committee could be  
> both plainer and more comprehensive, but Jimbo and through him the  
> Arbitration Committee do have authority to make reasonable  
> decisions. Please keep in mind that you are only being limited in  
> the range of voluntary work you chose to do on a particular website.
>
> This politically correct business is worth a comment. If I succeed  
> in following Wikipedia policy or correctly restating it I am in  
> some sense "correct" in that I have followed the "party line." That  
> is what I am supposed to do. I am not in a state of sin because I  
> describe in detail behavior which could be summarized as an  
> invidious characterization.
>
> Fred