Rickyrab's Opinion and Controversy Forum on Wikipedia Affairs

From Rickyrabpedia

This is an Opinion and Controversy Forum which is expressly for talking about my opinions of various controversies. From time to time, I will use this Forum as a stage on which to speak about various issues from my point of view.

Paul Vogel

This case has gone as far as BINDING ARBITRATION in official Wikipedian government, in which case people are earnestly talking about banning a Wikipedian. It does NOT have anything to do with NONBINDING ARBITRATION, which is what mediation is all about. If I were to mediate, I would not suggest or oppose banning or punishing any one disputant, for the goal is to make peace, not kick someone out. Rickyrab 04:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

What I'm talking about: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel/Evidence

My Opinion on the Matter: Preliminarily, in favor of a ban on Paul Vogel; he has apparently vandalized many pages and disrespected Wikipedia in general. It is true that being anti-Semitic, while I personally consider antisemitism to be reprehensible and crass, is not per se a barrier to contributing NPOV articles to Wikipedia. However, an antisemite who merely uses Wikipedia to foster anti-Semitic views is not being NPOV at all, and, moreover, since I happen to be Jewish, it would be tough to support an antisemite for his antisemitism. This does not mean that I wouldn't support an anti-Semite if he or she were to use his or her judgement wisely and try not to let his or her biases get in the way of his or her discussions and writings. Not everything done by Jews is perfect; not everything done by Jews is bad either. Likewise, not everything done by their enemies is perfect, but not everything done by their enemies is bad, either.

Moreover, Paul Vogel is being a vandal, and he also appears likely to sully more pages if he is not banned. Rickyrab 21:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Edit and Revert Wars

What I'm Talking about: Edit and revert wars

My opinion on the matter: It is often hard to tell which side is of a neutral point of view or not - or, indeed, if there is even a neutral point of view in an edit war or revert war. One guy says something, another says something else, and the upshot is often back-and-forth reverting. Sometimes it seems easy to discern a case of bias skewing a point of view, in which one writes something that is so contrary to commonly held knowledge that he or she seems to be lying. But is she or he really lying? How does one truly know? Life is a series of searches for truth, and, when edit and revert wars erupt, the truth becomes clouded under a load of controversy. In such cases, perhaps both points of views (or all points of view, if there are more than two) should be aired, with disclaimers, or a compromise point of view, in which both sides leave some controversial item unsaid, might be a better solution. However, if such a war were to go on and all attempts at compromise fail, then more drastic actions than mediation or nonbinding arbitration should be taken. Rickyrab 04:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)