Begin forwarded message:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Date: July 2, 2005 9:45:36 AM MDT To: "Nathan J. Yoder" njyoder@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