4 ms·

I don't know Guy, but purely from that linked discussion (Guy on George Galloway): > He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way That

I don't know Guy, but purely from that linked discussion (Guy on George Galloway): > He is without question a controversial figure, and not in a good way That is, without any need for further context, a statement of bias, and if the user Guy is espousing such views of relevant subjects here they absolutely shouldn't be involved in decision-making of any kind on this topic. This follow-up statement is worse again: > ... and allow PC to definitively clear his name Presumption of innocence is one thing, but presumption of a future outcome of arbitration is quite another. It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset, and it's not good.

lobotryas 8y ago
Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. Look at Assange. First he was hailed as a hero in the West; now he's looked at as a Russian agent.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Ummm. Parent isn't saying that. They're quoting Guy, who's saying that. Edit: Unless I missed a multiple negative.
- lucideer 8y ago
  > Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Of course not. I'm just saying that judgement of whether it is in "a good way" or "not a good way" will always be subjective, and representative of a biased viewpoint. Noone is completely unbiased but espousing such a viewpoint publically on a thread about arbitration isn't in keeping with responsibilities of Wikipedia's admins. > Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. The popularity of the opinion should not be a qualifier for it to make up a part of a Wikipedia aministrator's discourse on non-biased arbitration.
eftpotrm 8y ago
With respect, I would suggest a quick reading of George Galloway's biography would substantiate that suggestion. Mr. Galloway has a long history of loud oppositional politics and tribal attacks on his opponents. There are politicians I profoundly disagree with and yet respect for their service and their conduct; George Galloway is not one of them.
- lucideer 8y ago
  I think you're missing the point here. Your opinion of Galloway shouldn't matter; whether you're a supporter or detractor of his, you shouldn't allow that to come into the discussion if you're claiming to act as a non-biased admin. Guy did that.
  - eftpotrm 8y ago
    Not at all. There are people who are controversial because their opinions are difficult or challenging, and there are people who are controversial because their opinions are provably wrong or their actions are demonstrably hostile. Neutrality between fact and proven falsehood isn't neutrality but pandering. Noting when discussing Mr. Galloway that his conduct has repeatedly fallen far from truth and decency is a reasonable and well-referenced baseline. We wouldn't require an admin on a page discussing the physical structure of the earth to recuse themselves because they had expressed a public opinion that it wasn't flat and carried on the back of a turtle, would we?
tetromino_ 8y ago
> It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset ... and it's mostly irrelevant. A good Homo wikipediens, like a good judge or journalist or scientist, may well have his biases and private opinions, but is supposed to be able to put those initial biases and private opinions aside, impartially delve into the sources, and write a neutral, well-researched article about a subject.
- lucideer 8y ago
  I agree. My point is that this user has not kept their biases private, they've brought them to the public discussion on arbitration.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  Right. And that particular Wikipedian has a long and sordid history, including repeated formal admonishments, for doing precisely _not that_: * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Even without taking sides, that is over-the-top crazy stuff.
mjw1007 8y ago
For a clearer statement from Guy, explaining why he unilaterally shut down the original complaint, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=842039777 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&old... : « being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right »
- lucideer 8y ago
  > being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right Ok this just further proves my point. If you're justifying your actions based on the identity of individuals who criticise them (particularly individuals you've already previously stated your own negative views on), then that's the very definition of bias. If you need to do this to defend your position, personalising and individualising it rather than sticking to objective statements, there's a problem and you are not a neutral party.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    To an extent, but it's hardly the first time that any of these people involved have had their fair share of controversy, backroom dealings, being shown to openly and repeatedly lie about the topics they're admin'ing or "neutrally" arbitrating. Hell, half of them are so voluminous in their misdeeds that they got entire subforums dedicated to them on Wikipedia Review (before that place turned into a ghost town inhabited by crazy folk): * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44

lobotryas 8y ago

Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. Look at Assange. First he was hailed as a hero in the West; now he's looked at as a Russian agent.

mirimir 8y ago
Ummm. Parent isn't saying that. They're quoting Guy, who's saying that. Edit: Unless I missed a multiple negative.
lucideer 8y ago
> Are you saying that people can't be controversial in "not a good way"? I hope not. Of course not. I'm just saying that judgement of whether it is in "a good way" or "not a good way" will always be subjective, and representative of a biased viewpoint. Noone is completely unbiased but espousing such a viewpoint publically on a thread about arbitration isn't in keeping with responsibilities of Wikipedia's admins. > Whether this applies to Galloway is a matter of popular opinion. The popularity of the opinion should not be a qualifier for it to make up a part of a Wikipedia aministrator's discourse on non-biased arbitration.

eftpotrm 8y ago

With respect, I would suggest a quick reading of George Galloway's biography would substantiate that suggestion. Mr. Galloway has a long history of loud oppositional politics and tribal attacks on his opponents. There are politicians I profoundly disagree with and yet respect for their service and their conduct; George Galloway is not one of them.

lucideer 8y ago
I think you're missing the point here. Your opinion of Galloway shouldn't matter; whether you're a supporter or detractor of his, you shouldn't allow that to come into the discussion if you're claiming to act as a non-biased admin. Guy did that.
- eftpotrm 8y ago
  Not at all. There are people who are controversial because their opinions are difficult or challenging, and there are people who are controversial because their opinions are provably wrong or their actions are demonstrably hostile. Neutrality between fact and proven falsehood isn't neutrality but pandering. Noting when discussing Mr. Galloway that his conduct has repeatedly fallen far from truth and decency is a reasonable and well-referenced baseline. We wouldn't require an admin on a page discussing the physical structure of the earth to recuse themselves because they had expressed a public opinion that it wasn't flat and carried on the back of a turtle, would we?

tetromino_ 8y ago

> It's pretty clear where Guy stands on this from the outset ... and it's mostly irrelevant. A good Homo wikipediens, like a good judge or journalist or scientist, may well have his biases and private opinions, but is supposed to be able to put those initial biases and private opinions aside, impartially delve into the sources, and write a neutral, well-researched article about a subject.

lucideer 8y ago
I agree. My point is that this user has not kept their biases private, they've brought them to the public discussion on arbitration.
FireBeyond 8y ago
Right. And that particular Wikipedian has a long and sordid history, including repeated formal admonishments, for doing precisely _not that_: * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44
- mirimir 8y ago
  Even without taking sides, that is over-the-top crazy stuff.

mjw1007 8y ago

For a clearer statement from Guy, explaining why he unilaterally shut down the original complaint, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=842039777 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&old... : « being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right »

lucideer 8y ago
> being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right Ok this just further proves my point. If you're justifying your actions based on the identity of individuals who criticise them (particularly individuals you've already previously stated your own negative views on), then that's the very definition of bias. If you need to do this to defend your position, personalising and individualising it rather than sticking to objective statements, there's a problem and you are not a neutral party.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  To an extent, but it's hardly the first time that any of these people involved have had their fair share of controversy, backroom dealings, being shown to openly and repeatedly lie about the topics they're admin'ing or "neutrally" arbitrating. Hell, half of them are so voluminous in their misdeeds that they got entire subforums dedicated to them on Wikipedia Review (before that place turned into a ghost town inhabited by crazy folk): * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44