[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

[Rob]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Brian J Mingus
<brian.mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:
> This strikes me as indirection. If someone claims that an article is biased
> then they are also claiming that the process governing its creation is
> biased. Such a claim is not a slur, it is a purported statement of fact.
> However, you would say that the claim is invalid because to claim that an
> article is biased is to necessarily not assume good faith. Following your
> line of indirection, it isn't possible to claim that an article is biased
> because you would necessary violate the principle of good faith, ie,
> implicitly or explicitly claiming that particular editors are biased. I
> believe you would rather follow this line of reasoning because it directs
> attention away from the real issues at hand.

This bunch of wikilawyering ignores the fact that you directly called
the *contributors* and not the article biased.  And you've doubled
down on the baseless accusations by accusing me of trying to distract
from the issue at hand.  For what reason?  Motive: Unknown.  I guess
I'm one of those "biased anti-Santorum contributors" you initially
complained about.  Proof of this presented: None.

How long have you been editing Wikipedia?  I'd expect this kind of
behavior from a combative new editor, but an experienced editor or
administrator really should know better.  How editors interact with
one another isn't a "distraction", it's pretty fundamental to what we
do here.