Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Personal Attacks

I understand that there are strong feelings about Sam, but calling someone "less intelliigent" "long winded" and "dull" are classic examples of personal attacks and are not necessary. No big deal, we just need to tone it down before it gets any worse. Just my 2 cents. Thanks.Gator (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Gator. I agree completely. Jonathunder 19:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees. I have removed the latest troll personal attack

#:Are you trying to claim that only admins are constructive? Even if you are or are not, whatever limitations are being put on this user are of his own making. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

and will remove any further attacks that destroy the credibility of this process. The fact that the person who made this troll comment is an experienced admin gives great cause for concern, SqueakBox 15:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not a troll, and your accusation is inappropriate, as is the removal of my comment, which I will restore, and will discuss on ANI. I will not block you myself, as that is inappropriate, but your removal of other people's comments from discussions is a blockable offense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Here is a quote from the opening of it. Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.. I would remind you admins are excpected to hold a higher standard than normal editors. The article later says Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded. Please don't threaten to block me for enforcing policy, that in iotself is an abuse of admin powers when clezarly the only person who shoulod be threatened with blocking is yourself for making a disgusting personal attack, SqueakBox 14:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not when they are a personal attack they are not. Try blocking me for removing your troll attack against Sam and lets see what happens, a disgusted SqueakBox 13:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the personal attack in Zoe's comment. What's the problem with it? android79 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What is it doing there? If Zoe wants to insult Sam she can do so in her own comment but this was a response to another user's valid comment, implied that the various atacks against Sam are of his own making (clearly a personal attack). It was also an attack on Paroxysm, calling this user's vote and credibility into account in an entirely unnecessary way. Zoe knew there were problems with these kinds of personal attack on this Rfa because of the previous discussion here so all I can assume is she attacked deliberately to get a reaction, SqueakBox 14:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"implied that the various atacks against Sam are of his own making (clearly a personal attack)" -- no, this is not clearly a personal attack. It might be inflammatory and a bit uncivil, but IMO it doesn't rise to the level of PA. Asking for clarification of someone's vote is a common occurrence on RFA -- and Paroxysm did indeed provide clarification -- though IMO all such questions should be handled on the talk page. As for "all I can assume is she attacked deliberately to get a reaction" -- please WP:AGF. android79 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, ironically, calling Zoe a troll is itself a personal attack. android79 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not an Admin but I think you guys need to take your positions with a little more honor try to show some civility.

I too fail to see the personal attack here, unless perhaps it's Squeakbox repeatedly calling Zoe a troll. I'm not saying I think it should be removed, mind you. Friday (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not appear that Zoe has made any personal attacks against Sam, but some of the other comments are clearly out of bounds. There are much more appropriate ways to say that one does not want to see Sam as an arbitrator that resort to name calling and gross personal attacks against him:

• I always think of him as a less intelligent and slightly ruder version of Ed Poor, and I think he will abuse his position. — Dunc|☺ 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Never Belligerent, long-winded, and dull. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And spare the line that these are not personal attacks. Ten Dead Chickens 15:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I won't. But you missed, according to the tally at time of writing, 50 other personal attacks.

This is not a vote about communal Wikipedia content subject to the usual 'discuss the issue not the person' rules. This is a vote on someone's personal qualities as to whether they would make a good admin or a bad one. Assuming that intelligence, civility, tolerance, clarity, and ability to engage are qualities of a good admin, which IMO they clearly are, then people are perfectly entitled to oppose Sam on the grounds that he is unintelligent, rude, belligerent, long-winded or dull without having to worry about accusations of personal attacks. --Malthusian (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivilty are not acceptable on Wikipedia. <-- full stop

RFA isn't a free-for-all forum for users to make ironic comments about another Wikipedian's intelligence. Ineloquent 00:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But people that vote 'oppose' without giving a reason are frequently asked to explain their vote. So apparently, if they dislike the candidate personally, they have the choice of either remaining silent and being accused of opposing for no reason, opening themselves up to accusations of incivility, or thinking up a different, less easily misinterpreted reason for their vote (i.e. lying).

I'm not saying that there are no limits here, but you will see people saying things here that they wouldn't on an article talk page. Nor will I say that "Belligerent, long-winded and dull" is a constructive comment, and it would probably have been better unsaid, but people should be able to give their opinions without agonising over the wording.

Also, bear in mind that the exact 'personal attack' you're referring to there was (paraphrasing for clarity) "Sam is less intelligent than Ed Poor". If someone called me less intelligent than Ed Poor that I wouldn't find it particularly offensive, any more than "That Malthus, I bet Amir Khan could beat him up". --Malthusian (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I like Ed but I would hardly call him an Amir Khan of the intellectual world. For me the issue is not about personal attacks per se but personal attacks directed at people under Rfa (which Sam is/was and Zoe isn't). IMO these personal attacks discourage people from putting themselves up for Rfa, results in people leaving the project in disgust (in the few months I used to watch Rfa I saw 3 people leave after negative comments made to them while under Rfa). I never met Zoe before this (no history between her and I) but I discovered she is one of our most experienced admins. Therefore it is reasonable to expect higher standards from her than from others who have made negative comments here. IMO negative comments undermine respect fro the Rfa process which undermines respect fro admins in what must be a very difficult job, and when it is admins themselves who engage in these undermining personal attack proccess and then expect to be respected as admins all I can say is there is something seriously wrong. The way Sam has been treated confirms the problems with the Rfa as long as personal attacks are being encouraged by, SqueakBox 14:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Without knowing exactly who you're referring to, if they were sensitive enough to leave the project altogether because they perceived personal attacks in a vote which the guide to RFA warns very near the top of the page "can be a harsh process", then I have to say it might have been a good thing they weren't armed with admin tools at the time.

And since we're back to Zoe, I'd like to say that IMO, while the perfect admin may speak softly and carry a big stick, the stick is more important than the softness. --Malthusian (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrat intervention

Can a bureaucrat please investigate personal attacks on this project page? SqueakBox 14:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Some perspective please... this is politics; it's inherently and unavoidably personal. Zoe did not make any personal attacks; other voters came closer, but there is nothing here out of line for political conversations. the debate revolves around Sam's character, so opposing his bid means (by definition) that one has a negative perception of his character. no one is required to be reasonable when it comes to an expression of their vote choice, and neither you nor Sam need to take anything said here personally.

I accept that you don't much like Zoe, and I respect your zeal in promoting Sam's bid, but (IMO) it's time for you to let this go.Ted 16:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the two comments above qualify as personal attacks, but since Sam is not the most popular editor here, we can just those go huh? Ten Dead Chickens 01:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

hey TDC (great name BTW)... I'd tend to agree with you that those two comments were a bit out of line, and if this were a content article I'd axe them myself. but it's not; the very point of this page is to discuss our good or bad feelings about Sam becoming an admin. if you remove strong negative opinions about Sam then you'd have to remove strong positive statements about him as well, otherwise you'd be creating a pro-Sam bias and misrepresenting community opinions. I would hope that we are all mature enough to recognize that the more extreme opinions are just that—opinions. even though I don't credit either of those statements as true (any more than I credit Squeakbox's troll comments as true), it's valuable to know that those kinds of emotions about Sam are out there. Ted 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ten Dead Chickens 01:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Troll statements are made to get a reaction, they have no real purpose. By that definition my vcomments were not trollish, I was trying to stop the degradation of this Rfa process, apparently banging my head against a brick wall as it appears that no attempt will be made to stop personal attacks, no matter how vicious, against people under Rfa, SqueakBox 14:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)