Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cognition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Personal attacks?

I don't see that Cognition's nomination statement really contains personal attacks. Strongly worded condemnations of the perceived unjust behavior of other editors, yes, but that's not quite the same thing. It was delisted on these grounds, but I put it back in. He expressed to me on my talk page that he doesn't think his nomination will succeed, but that he can "take the heat" and would like for the process to run its course.

So, in short, I hope the nomination can stay. I don't support him, but if he wants to see how much support or opposition the community has for him, he should have that chance. Friday (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your definition of a personal attack. I consider "...radical environmentalist activist User:Cberlet (see Chip Berlet) and enabled by the avowedly abusive administrators User:Willmcw and User:Slimvirgin (see the latest arbitration evidence against their abuses)." to be personal attacks against three editors. Carbonite | Talk 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Harsh, yes, and I can ever see why people consider it borderline. But, the worst I can see there is calling them "abusive". This is an assertion that they've engaged in certain behavior: abuse. Commenting on someone's behavior, even with very strong language, is not personal in my book. Friday (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

He didn't say that their behavior was abusive, he said that they were abusive. When comments focus on a person rather than a content issue, it's personal. On a user talk page, those comments might be borderline, but on this page it's completely unacceptable. This RfA is suppose to focus on Cognition and he shouldn't be making negative comments about other users (whether they're personal attack or not). If he wants to continue with this RfA, he needs to rewrite his nomination. Carbonite | Talk 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the statement on your talk page. However, it confirms my opinion that this "request" should not be listed. That statement is an open admission that the purpose of the nomination is not actually an attempt to request administrator status. In other words, the nomination is made in bad faith, which is what I suspected in any case. That's an additional reason to remove it, because the "request" is unrelated to the purpose of the RfA page.

I would contend that describing people as "avowedly abusive administrators" (as an alliterative appellation) constitutes a personal attack, since it's clearly false unless those people have in fact admitted being abusive. That's probably the most egregious part of the statement. Note that I did not delete the nomination subpage itself or take any other action, such as the option of removing personal attacks that some people support. But I strongly believe this nomination is frivolous and does not belong on RfA. --Michael Snow 19:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Friday, it's WP:POINT. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

He's making a point, certainly. But where's the disruption? RFA is an accepted process. People are allowed to self-nominate. Micheal Snow gave the only reason for delisting that could be valid IMO: Bad faith.

I certainly agree that bad faith would be a good reason for de-listing. And, from the talk page, you could say there appears to be an ulterior motive. But it's not really ulterior, is it? It's the very same motive he came right out and stated in his nomination: He wants to correct what he sees as abusive actions by other editors. He's telling us he believes he could do that better if given sysop rights. Misguided? Certainly, in my opinion. Bad faith? Maybe, but to say so, now we're speculating about his motives instead of just reading what he wrote. Friday (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm just reading what he wrote. ;-) And this is the disruption, so I'll say no more about it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Friday, given what Cognition said right on your talk page, I'm not sure how this can be construed as anything but bad faith. Cognition has explicitly stated that he expects the RFA to fail, and that he's using it as a soapbox to criticise other editors. There are better avenues for him to employ if he wishes to encourage public review of administrator action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Cognition's bid for adminship is unlikely to succeed. However, I think it would be a grave error to de-list it. There is a form of corruption in Wikipedia that people don't like to talk about, but it will only get worse if there is a pact among members not to discuss it. That corruption is the fact that POV warfare often gets carried out, not via heated discussion on talk pages, but by clever manipulation of administrative procedure. I have seen, time and again, Admins with a strong POV coming riding in, quoting Wikipedia rules by the dozens, to discipline their POV opponents, while looking the other way or winking at the gross transgressions of their POV allies.

Therefore, if you don't like the way Cognition framed his bid for adminship, vote against him, and if you like, explain your reasons on the relevant talk page. But don't try to silence him by invoking some procedural rule which may be marginally applicable. If there is to be POV warfare, let it be honest, not surreptitious. --HK 20:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with POV. It's got everything to do with a user who is not fit for adminship, period. And that's all I'm going to say to you.--Sean Black | Talk 05:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)