[WikiEN-l] And this is why personal attacks need to be defined

Sun Jul 3 03:59:40 UTC 2005

Lesson of the day, calling an admin's (but probably not a regular
user's) behavior disingenuous is a 'personal attack.'

Here's the direct quote which snowspinner deliberately looked for and
blocked me for out of spite: "In any case, I just love how the admins
here are trying their absolute best to disengenuously change the
process in order to ensure their continued status."

That was from a discussion on the RfA talk page about whether or not
blank oppose votes (And other oppose votes decided to be invalid for
whatever reason) shouldn't be counted in votes for new admins.

Talk about a act of bad faith and an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to
make a point!

I propose a question: what's the politically correct version of
suggesting that someone's intentions are not honest?  "I think that
maybe, it seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), that this idea
may be promoted, by some admins, as a less-than-honest method of
trying to keep themselves in power.  Again, I apologize if I'm wrong
and will make a goat sacrifice if I have hurt anyone's feelings in
saying this."

Maybe I should start keeping a list of all the "personal attacks" that
admins use, but then that list itself might be seen as a "personal
attack" using this warped bizzaro-logic.

Oh I should add that I didn't actually know this second block was in
place until I tried editing my own user page and it was auto-reset, so
yeah, it's kind of hard to argue it's not a bug.

----------------------------------------------
Nathan J. Yoder
http://www.gummibears.nu/
http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key
----------------------------------------------