Dabljuh wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:24:20 +0100
"David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Bollocks it does. This fallacious view seems to
be held by many on AFD
- where saying someone's deletion nomination was completely
wrongheaded, misguided and stupid will get some idiot claiming that
you have "assumed bad faith" of the nominator. No, I've assumed bad
*judgement*, with the nomination as the evidence.
- d.
Of course you are right - you don't "assume bad faith" by calling
someone's misguided, wrongheaded and stupid action such. That's
a matter of subjective perception (as you call it, evidence).
It is however WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that prevent you from calling it so.
It is not. "You're a fucking idiot" is both incivil, and a personal
attack. "I think that this was a mistake" is neither. Show me the idiot
(NPA applies to the wikis, not the MLs ;-)) claiming this, and I will,
*ahem*, have a word. :-)
Hint: You can always call someone a troll. It looks
like that's
not a personal attack or anything incivil, but a constructive
criticism of someone's editing habit.
Do that and I will personally block you. Calling someone a "troll" is
the most hurtful thing you can say - the equivalent of "all users must
assume bad faith on the part of this user in all actions". Calling
someone a "troll" is never, /ever/, "constructive criticism".
"You're
being disruptive in doing <foo>, please stop" is the nearest you can get
along that tangent, and it's no-where close.
Yours sincerely,
--
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org
IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com