User talk:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA
isn't insinuating that someone is power hungry a personal attack?
edit
See especially bugbear's comments and my reply here (refactored for simplicity). thoughts? xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
| “ | Kurt's votes are troublesome not because he is standing up for what he believes in, but because they verge on personal attacks. Saying something like "self noms trouble me", "I do not feel comfortable with someone who wants to self nom", or "I cannot support someone who actively seeks adminship" would be fine. But to call someone "power hungry", where I come from, is a personal attack, and wrapping it in Latin doesn't change that. Kurt is more than welcome to his opinion, and no one should begrudge him the way he votes in RfAs, but he should do it civilly -- which accusing someone of power hunger is not. - Revolving Bugbear 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | ” |
| “ | Well said, bugbear. I think you pretty much nailed it there. If Kurt softened the language he uses in his self-nom opposes, it would go a long way to lessening the negative reactions. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | ” |
- I disagree that it's a personal attack. However, after spending more time in Wikipedia, and being strongly in the camp that Kurt has every right to make these votes, clearly there will always be a level of disruption relating to this vote. The disruption, I think, is probably related to the smugness of the vote, also the somewhat incorrect usage of prima facie. Just not sure where to go from here though... I doubt there will be many willing to call it a personal attack. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What if he said "Forget it - you're power hungry" ? (which is essentially what he's doing but trying to sound intelligent about it). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)- That is closer to a personal attack, but that isn't what he is stating. He is correlating self-noms with power-hunger and opposing based on that. Because power-hunger is related to an RfA, it's really not an attack unless he forms it in a cruel manner, which he isn't doing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I suppose bugbear said it best, that it is on the verge of being a PA. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)- Another thing, is that assuming there is some level of substantiation to a claim, identifying people in such categories is allowable. Like "Because of your poor answer to Q1, I think you are clearly incivil". Or "Per Q2, you clearly don't understand policy". These are harsh, and could be better worded, and might even be wrong, but I wouldn't consider them personal attacks. On the other hand, Saying "Per horrible answers to questions, candidate is a bona-fide moron" is a personal attack, even with substantiation. So, the two points I am making is that power hunger is a viable reason for concern over a candidate, and also, Kurt provides a minimal level of substantiation to justify it. We can all disagree, but Kurt believes nominating yourself means you want to be an admin (and maybe so hungry you cant wait for another nom). However weak the reasoning, there is enough substantiation to legitimize it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I said on my talk page, I don't consider Kurt's comments to be personal attacks. At the same time, if others deem them to be such, I am not condoning personal attacks, nor am I defending them. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Another thing, is that assuming there is some level of substantiation to a claim, identifying people in such categories is allowable. Like "Because of your poor answer to Q1, I think you are clearly incivil". Or "Per Q2, you clearly don't understand policy". These are harsh, and could be better worded, and might even be wrong, but I wouldn't consider them personal attacks. On the other hand, Saying "Per horrible answers to questions, candidate is a bona-fide moron" is a personal attack, even with substantiation. So, the two points I am making is that power hunger is a viable reason for concern over a candidate, and also, Kurt provides a minimal level of substantiation to justify it. We can all disagree, but Kurt believes nominating yourself means you want to be an admin (and maybe so hungry you cant wait for another nom). However weak the reasoning, there is enough substantiation to legitimize it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is closer to a personal attack, but that isn't what he is stating. He is correlating self-noms with power-hunger and opposing based on that. Because power-hunger is related to an RfA, it's really not an attack unless he forms it in a cruel manner, which he isn't doing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand how suggesting that a person is power-hungry can be described as a personal attack. In dictionary terms power equates to authority and hunger equates to want or need. So power hunger is translatable as "wanting authority", which is self-evident by the fact of a nom being a self-nom. We could stipulate that editors nominated by other editors may well be seen as equally authority-seeking, as they are always free to refuse nomination. Surely any editor undergoing an RfA must want to be an admin in order to be involved in the process, and hence logically all candidates want the authority which admin status confers. They may therefore, in at least some sense, all be seen as power-hungry.
But I fully agree that Kurt have every right to make his point, and would support a proposal, if made, for streams generated by his comment to be routinely removed, if they related to his comment rather than to the actual RfA or the candidate. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)