Content deleted Content added
Line 389:
As I mentioned, I thought my response to your post on the OzRupert circus both funny and entirely appropriate given the fallout was like something out of Seinfeld. Anyway, we move on. Your recent comments show you to be also thoughtful and reflective. Do I think the ANI thread should be reopened? What I certainly think is that it raises issues, at least one of which could do with further discussion. That is: the application of sanctions. As I asked, how is it that one editor's sanctions can escalate in an accumulative manner, while another's, considered equally serious in terms of the number of blocks, do not? Consequently, this case is certainly open to criticism that the way sanctions were applied was unequal. Should Wikipedia have a more defined system of sanctions to assist admins, and so preclude claims of arbitrariness and the appearance of unprofessionalism?
Re: Homophobia in editing. I appreciated your astute comments on the issue. Not readily solvable I would suggest, although a serious problem on Wikipedia when, as I wrote, a few editors discount reliable sources from publishers like publishers like Viking
Re: my behaviour specifically. One editor wrote on the thread: "As a community, I believe we have stressed the importance of distinguishing between edits and editors.", and "The situation becomes a bit muddier if multiple edits occur. It becomes harder to separate the editors from the editor, but that's what we are supposed to do." Although it's against my nature, I followed such procedural disingenuousness up to a certain point on several occasions, but then snapped and called it out as homophobia, just as I'm sure recidivist racism eventually gets directly called out when it goes beyond the point of reasonable toleration. (And, as others have pointed out, ANI doesn't handle Civil POV cases well because they're so difficult to prove -- complainants tend to come across as stressed and troublesome, while defendants can appear calm and measured.) However, I now appreciate that unless Wikipedia specifically changes its policy and permits the honest calling out of editors on bad behaviour in situations of extremis, (that would be an interesting discussion), sticking with 'blame the edit, not the editor', however grating false, will be the only permissible behaviour - however occasionally distasteful a straitjacket I or anyone else may find it. So there is my explicit concession!
| |||