User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA

There has been a lot of discussion, for an extended period of time, in relation to Kurt and his “power hungry” opposition of virtually every self-nominated RfA and most candidates who have participated in admin coaching. Overwhelming community consensus, through RfCs and WT:RFA discussion, is that, while some may disagree with Kurt’s opinion, that doesn’t make his opinion less valid (…than it already is, perhaps?). Just because I disagree with something doesn’t make it wrong.

However, what is wrong is the amount of abuse Kurt receives for voicing his opinion. He is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He’s saying what he thinks, and consensus is that it’s OK for him to do so…yet some users think it OK to attack him, or bait him, at every opportunity, using “but it’s Kurt!” as a defence. That’s not right.

It is also not right to pin everything on a failed RfA that was over a year ago. People can change in that time, and if we are to never forgive and forget, as it would be, then we will never develop as a community. Comments like “Methinks you’re just angry because you failed RfA ages ago” are several degrees more pointy, and much less AGF-ish, than Kurt’s.

Some call Kurt’s comments trolling. Some disagree. If they are, wouldn’t it violate WP:DNFT to go around attacking him, with comments beginning with “I view self noms as…”. Everyone knows what you’re implying, and who you’re attacking, yet ironically, it’s Kurt who remains calm and civil, and who isn’t baited by these below-the-belt tactics.

To take a random example, Pedro’s RfA catchline is along the lines of “Candidate would (/not) be a net positive if sysopped.” If someone were to start making comments that clearly are in spite of Pedro, and contain most of that tagline, do you think it would be tolerated for long? The obvious answer is that no, the user would be asked to stop, and blocked if the behaviour continued, for “disruption”. (The fact that it isn’t inherently a WP:POINT violation is another story, for another essay)

Oh, and to those who call Kurt an SPA, please look at.

Is it fair to treat Kurt differently, just because we disagree with his opinion? It’s not. Leave him alone.

I didn’t even mention that we trust the ‘crats to discount his votes (that seems to be the general idea, anyway), but that’s all the more reason to get off his back. Telling someone they’re being ignored is more likely to irritate them and make them keep going, than simply ignoring them completely.
 * Originally written March 2008.


 * This is what blocking someone for their opinions looks like. There's currently drama taking place with regards to very short featured article candidates. We have 347,236 bytes of discussion there that could have been put to much better use. 03:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)