Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/AustralianRupert

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

AustralianRupert's edit stats using XTools as of 07:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC):[reply]

First edit:	Jan 15, 2009, 4:38 AM
Latest edit:	May 21, 2016, 6:54 AM
Live edits:	62,778
Deleted edits:	543
Total edits:  	63,321
 
Edits in the past 24 hours:	73
Edits in the past 7 days:	149
Edits in the past 30 days:	1,170
Edits in the past 365 days:	9,986
Ø number of edits per day:	23.6

Live edits:
Unique pages edited:	16,685
Pages created:	1,631
Pages moved:	121
Ø edits per page:	3.8
Ø change per page (bytes):	extended
Files uploaded:	57
Files uploaded (Commons):	446
(Semi-)automated edits:	24
Reverted edits:	14
Edits with summary:	62,580
Number of minor edits (tagged):	2,464
Number of edits (<20 bytes):	extended
Number of edits (>1000 bytes):	extended
 
Actions:
Thank:	477 x
Approve:	6 x
Patrol:	861 x
Admin actions
Block:	0 x
Protect:	0 x
Delete:	0 x
Import:	0 x
Article:
(Re)blocked:	0 x
Longest block: –
Current block: –
 
SUL editcounter 
(approximate):	latest
► enwiki	63,088	+37 minutes
commonswiki	1,506	+3 hours
wikidata	17	> 30 days
eswiki	14	> 30 days
hewiki	12	+27 days
plwiki	10	> 30 days
fiwiki	8	> 30 days
dewiki	8	> 30 days
itwiki	5	> 30 days
nlwiki	5	> 30 days
ptwiki	4	> 30 days
42 others	42	+27 days
Total edits	64,719

Discussion of Engleham's oppose vote

No good can come of this

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Oppose - Universal adulation always suggests there's bodies rotting somewhere, and with a vote count that Kim Jong-il might envy, I'll vote nay just to tip a cold bucket of reality over the bedazzled mob, and keep Rupert on his toes. I shan't believe the dingo did it. Engleham (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What??? Did you seriously vote oppose just so this user can't get a 100% support rate? I'm half-minded to strike this vote as blatant nonsense.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support striking this lame oppose. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not AustralianRupert knows policy and can be trusted with the tools. — Maile (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is Engleham's very first RfA vote despite being a 10-year editor. Everybody (but me) said advertising RfA's would be a good thing. Here we have evidence that assertion was incorrect. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'd expect that sort of comment from a troll ... not a 10 year editor!, I too would support striking as it relates nothing to the RFA. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people care if someone votes oppose for any reason? The RfA will succeed anyway. Nobody cares if it's a "shutout". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, threats of bullying and suppression are good! One quietly lodges a vote to bring a note of philosophical reflection to the proceedings, and fabulously, it flushes out the humourless kommandants manning the Kool-Aid table. One couldn't wish for anything more. I've already been given a peck on the cheek, but I really should get one of those dog-ugly barnstars for this. Has it really been 10 years? Fuck me dead. Well let me raise a toast (in some other beverage) to all those who died here at my hands over that golden-tinted decade. Bless. Engleham (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that was your attempt at humor, you crossed the line you tallied it as an actual !vote. I struck the vote per this discussion.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone Cyberpower678´s edit. Please note that I voted support. Please don't editwar with me, use the talkpage if necessary. I am willing to explain my position in detail. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No The Quixotic Potato this kind of voting is not acceptable. If it was a new editor who had voted like this, it would've been struck immediately. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please talk about this instead of editwarring? If it was a new editor then I would've ignored it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand that people disagree with the vote and the comment. I voted in support of AustralianRupert (because I literally have no reason to oppose). But I do believe that people who disagree with me, or express themselves in ways that not everyone likes, have a right to vote (or at least as much as I do). And if you carefully read the comment (and ignore the parts that cause an emotional reaction) he has a valid point. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As dumb as the !vote is, leaving it up is really not a big deal. The closing 'crat will give it all the weight it's due. I just hope Engleham realizes it will come back to haunt him should he ever seek adminship. clpo13_(talk) 22:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that leaving it up is totally not a big deal, it doesn't affect anything. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just a vote "not everyone likes." It's a vote that says "because no one has found something to object to, there must be something to object to." It's ABF at best and trolling at worst. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the vote would look like unnecessary censorship. It may be one person's opinion that the majority does not agree with, but so be it. It's not going to change the outcome anyway. I would let it stand. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one vote does not affect the result in any way. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I see it. This !vote was cast simply because the candidate currently had 100%. Engleham, wanted to either be funny, or give the supporters a "reality check" by opposing on grounds completely unrelated to the candidate, or even the RfA process. It's a trollish comment meant to make a rare 100% RfA get destroyed.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming bad faith. I don't think the vote was cast in bad faith. It seems unlikely to me. I have read his userpage. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How am I assuming bad faith? I'm not assuming anything.

Universal adulation always suggests there's bodies rotting somewhere, and with a vote count that Kim Jong-il might envy, I'll vote nay just to tip a cold bucket of reality over the bedazzled mob, and keep Rupert on his toes. I shan't believe the dingo did it. Engleham (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing in there related to the candidate, the RfA process, and has a bunch of non-sense phrases, I can't make sense of. I, among with other people, am calling it as I see it.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can make sense of it. You are totally allowed to disagree with the comment. I voted in support of AustralianRupert. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you interpret it for me and elaborate?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally willing to elaborate, but I type quite slowly and English is not my native language. Gimme a sec. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it bad faith or even trolling? I think so. But it carries no weight, so why strike it? To dissuade others from making such posts? That is not a huge problem at RfA. We are not swamped with these. Silencing disagreeable viewpoints is a slippery slope and there should be be an important reason to do so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, it's rare to see an RfA where the RfX reporter reports 100%. This vote clearly undermines that. That's why I would strike it.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematicians will tell you that 99.9999∞% is the same as 100%. Who cares if one person opposes? It doesn't affect the result. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How I interpret the comment is as follows:

Universal adulation always suggests there's bodies rotting somewhere

I interpret this to mean that the oppose vote is not personal and not aimed at AustralianRupert, but based on more philosophical reasons.

and with a vote count that Kim Jong-il might envy, I'll vote nay just to tip a cold bucket of reality over the bedazzled mob, and keep Rupert on his toes.

This made me smile, but I understand that most people have a different sense of humor. Again Engleham indicated that this is nothing personal.

I shan't believe the dingo did it.

Again Engleham is using humor to make a point. The Quixotic Potato (talk)

But what's his point? That's he's too cynical to believe someone doesn't have skeletons in the closet? clpo13_(talk) 22:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think it is far more complicated. I'll try to explain, but I type slowly and I am not a native speaker, gimme a sec. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Quixotic Potato, humour to make a point, or to veil bad faith? You may be right, though. But if the aim was humour, an RfA oppose is a bad place for it. Maybe not bad faith, but a bad place for joke at best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that RfA's are a bad place for jokes, but still I wrote: "Support a reindeer with a mop". I admit to being a hypocrite on my userpage. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one said RfAs are a bad place for jokes. I've made jokes myself, but opposing someone with a joke, is no longer a joke, it's bad taste, and frowned upon.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said that RfAs are a bad place for jokes. But I also said that I admit to being a hypocrite. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpower678, as I see it, and with respect, that is not a good enough reason. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removal of the strike. Awful things. Never liked them. Or any censorship. I'm afraid I didn't get the memo that cynics are not permitted to vote. If one disagrees with the stated reasons for a vote, you can always comfort yourself yourself by pretending it was made – like so many decisions by administrators I've read over the years – arbitrarily. But one still has to swallow them. :-) Engleham (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So in short there's nothing against the candidate, he just opposed for other reasons, which has nothing to do with RfA and tried to be funny about it, which it's not since he's trying to sell this as a legitimate oppose, which it's not. In short that comes across as trolling. It would've probably been funny if he just made it in the general comments section. I know this RfA will succeed but voting simply because he has 100% support to undermine such a rarity, should be struck, since I still haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still writing. Sorry for being slow. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it actually looks good for a candidate that the one opposing vote is made strictly on contrarian grounds. There's a positive way to look at it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should preface this by saying that this is my personal interpretation of something someone who I've never met wrote, so I may very well be wrong. I cannot look inside Engleham's head.

It is also important to note that this is not important. I mean, this single vote does not affect the result in any way whatsoever. AustralianRupert will be an admin, and I voted for in favor of that.

I assume that the reason is a belief that in a "democracy" (note the quotation marks) unanimous support is unhelpful. No one is perfect (persons and organizations alike).

Engleham may be a bit cynical, but so am I. I voted support, Engleham voted oppose, but still I believe that it is worthwhile to defend his vote, because silencing those who disagree is always a scary and bad thing.

I don't think AustralianRupert would mind (again, pure guesswork on my part!).

I do not understand why you believe that 100% support is something to strive for. All the famous "good" people I know have positives and negatives. Ghandi was accused of being a racist pedophile. Mother Theresa was accused of being obsessed with death and using money intended for hospitals for religious purposes.

Having almost unanimous support is the same thing as having unanimous support imho.

Wikipedia editors are a diverse group of people with different mindsets and ideas, and some people disagree with the majority. I think that that in itself has value, even when I am part of the majority.

Of course I am explaining this very badly, sorry for that, but I hope this makes it a little bit more clear. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have a little sympathy with an early "oppose" vote based on this reason - or more accurately if it were "seeding" the oppose section, on the similar grounds that people with genuine oppose reasons might not be prepared to go against the herd.

At this stage in the proceedings, such a vote is an assumption of bad faith against the candidate and the electorate.

Not only that, it is a complete waste of everyone's time, the only potential up-side being an "I told you so" if the candidate really messes up big time one day.

A vote not based on the candidate, or ideally the candidate's behaviour, does not contribute to consensus.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The vote does not affect the outcome in any way. I do not think that the vote was cast in bad faith. I have read Engleham's userpage. I think that a vote that is not based on a candidates behaviour, but rather on philosophical reasons also has value. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. RfA is a discussion about the candidate, not philosophy. One should be opposing for reasons that reflect the candidate, not philosophy, therefore, philosophical opposes have no place at RfA.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfA is a place where a diverse community of editors, with wildly varying life experiences, can express their opinion. To me, a vote based on philosophical reasons can have value, just like a vote based on an edit made by the potential admin can have value. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... ... ... I have no idea what to say to that anymore. One thing is for certain, if someone where to oppose my RfA, I would want a better reason than a philosophical/bad humor reason, and if I were the evaluating bureaucrat, a rational having nothing to do with the candidate as to why they won't make a good admin would carry no weight for me. This is my final comment on the matter, as I would like to get back to what I am good at, bot work.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this earlier, but it seems to have fallen off. Thank you for removal of the strike. Awful things. Never liked them. Or any censorship. I'm afraid I didn't get the memo that cynics are not permitted to vote. If one disagrees with the stated reasons for a vote, you can always comfort yourself yourself by pretending it was made – like so many decisions by administrators I've read over the years – arbitrarily. But one still has to swallow them. :-) Yes, Quixy, 100% approval is never good news, including for the candidate. And Anna - I loved your blocklog. Talk about battlewounds! You must be fearless. Engleham (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Engleham, are you enjoying the 13,432 characters that have landed here as a result of your oppose? And what about the hours of reading that have been wasted too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand I agree that this discussion isn't gonna help write the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I think it is useful to have discussions like this once in a while. And I think it is important that people who disagree with the majority, and express themselves in a way that not everyone appreciates, are defended. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such expressions are usually inappropriate, but at an RfA oppose? That's hard to defend, not to mention the waste of resources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found it relatively easy to defend my edit so far. I have to admit that I am one of those weird people who likes useless things. I like art, which is considered useless by some. I like useless boxes and (nearly) useless contraptions. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Honestly Engleham, are you enjoying the 13,432 characters that have landed here as a result of your oppose?" Well, I'm marvelling at it. Imagine if I used my powers for a troll post – Wikipedia would be seized up! "And what about the hours of reading that have been wasted too." What about the hours of snacking! Anna darling, let's not kid ourselves: no one posting on this page has a life. I'm guessing some haven't had such enjoyment in months. Maybe years! Engleham (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question, Engleham. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, let me get the lube. Engleham (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, the comments on the RfA aren't hurting anybody. This discussion is adding more toxicity to this RfA than the original comment. Everybody drop it and let's move on. Who cares if the one oppose is serious or not? The 'crats aren't stupid. Leave the oppose alone and let's just be happy for AusRup that this will pass easily.--v/r - T P 04:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following was moved to the talkpage by The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move this to talk page. If a new editor would have done this then it would have become trolling and disruptive editing. There are other RFA's where oppose votes were 1% but even they have a reason. Cyberpower didn't do anything wrong. This is also called attention seeking. No one will read the names of all support voters, but people will concentrate on one oppose vote. So let me vote oppose. Now they will visit my userpage. They will see my edit count. They will check my contribution. And I will neither visit your userpage or check your contribution as that is what you want others to do here. Thanks. 223.231.10.171 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, and other recent comments seem to confirm that this is just blatant trolling. The comment / !vote / vote / whatever should probably be re-stricken (if not removed) as trolling / abf / point / etc. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh SQL: just because everyone hates IT, don't take it out on others. Remember, we all hate HR more. Engleham (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So - you aren't disagreeing with me that you are just doing this to troll / waste everyone's time? SQL ^{Query me!} 03:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any recent comments made by Engleham have changed my opinion. The comment that was struck was AFAIK not trolling, not pointy and not assuming bad faith. See the hatted section above. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I think we got that in your unwavering defense of Engleham's oppose. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant every word sincerely. I recognise opposing popularity is thoughtcrime these days, but there you have it. And as I typed to someone a moment ago: "when there's so many mini-masterpieces of spin requiring desperate editorial attention (like this corker I came across the other day: Bongbong Marcos), one wishes some sense of perspective amongst the lumpen could be be brought to bear." Engleham (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following was moved to the talkpage by The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out again, Quixotic Potato's explanation notwithstanding. Vote had nothing to do with the candidate or their contributions to the project and seemed to be a comment on the process itself or aspects of the position and the process. Rupert can read the talk page and be reminded of his toes, and the dingo. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, see consensus above. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus above - please stop edit warring. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no consensus you say? Then that means my preferred version should stay. Please stop editwarring. Essentially nothing matters; we're all just highly evolved monkeys, clinging to a rock that's falling through space and the rock itself is dying. Let's write or improve some Wikipedia articles. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one edit warring here. I haven't touched the oppose section ONCE - nor do I plan to. YOU on the other hand, have a clear opinion in the matter - have made two reverts now - and you feel that you are capable of judging consensus in the above discussion? I would suggest that you stop edit warring over that oppose. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't just asking you, but everyone. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. That is our shared goal. This stuff is irrelevant. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Graham Norton has already dealt with Rupert. So take his advice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k5MlbgHavM Engleham (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Basement12's oppose vote

Oppose and will take all the flak that comes my way. I commend AustralianRupert on their pending adminship, I'm sure they will continue to be a great asset to Wikipedia and will wield the tools appropriately as their history is exemplary up to this point. Nevertheless, given the idiocy and time wasting that has occurred around this nomination and its lone dissenting voice I choose to second that dissenting voice. Throughout all the discussion that occurred I see no effort from Rupert to step in and diffuse the situation, for a potential admin that either shows a lack of awareness or a lack of desire to get involved in an issue that could clearly have been quickly put down. “The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing” and from what I see AustralianRupert did nothing, which is not what I'd want from an admin. If someone can point me in the direction of some positive effort from AustralianRupert in this instance then I will strike this with great pleasure - Basement12 (T.C) 21:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. AR's "positive effort" was to do nothing. I can't think of anything more foolish than for him to have stepped in. Putting aside his obvious self-interest, it would have accomplished absolutely nothing. BTW, you did not format your oppose properly. As it stands, it won't be counted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 BTW as you should know despite the blurb that appears at the top of this page it is WP:NOTAVOTE so counting isn't neeeded. But thanks for proving the point - Basement12 (T.C) 21:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lose-lose proposition for the candidate. Don't say anything, and risk an oppose !vote; say something and risk the possibility of being accused of "badgering" and an oppose !vote. If you wanted the candidate to respond, you should have asked them a question about the matter in the Questions for the candidate section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a competition to make the silliest vote? I commend AustralianRupert for not feeding the troll, they were right to not respond to that nonsense. Admins aren't supposed to settle matter they are directly involved in. HighInBC 21:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Basement12, you have offered two rationales for opposition. The first is to "second th[e] dissenting voice." Since the "dissenting voice" offered no meaningful rationale for opposing, and was perceived as verging on trollish, seconding it is not a meaningful basis for opposing either. The second basis is that AustralianRupert did not speak up while the validity of the earlier oppose was being discussed, and supposedly should have spoken up, and "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing" (melodramatic capitalization in original). I am not sure what exactly you are analogizing to "Evil"—it's obviously not AustralianRupert's impending adminship, which you say you "commend" even as you formally record yourself in opposition, and it can't be the mere fact of an on-wiki discussion, because describing that as "Evil" would represent such a loss of perspective that I'm reluctant to attribute it to you. Have you considered that perhaps AustralianRupert's thinking was "I don't think people posting absurd or seemingly trolling RfA opposes should be indulged, but it's hardly my place to call out a potential RfA troll or debate the validity of a !vote on my own RfA." If anything, that would be an anticipatory invocation-by-analogy of the policy against administrators (and soon-to-be administrators) acting in disputes they are involved in, and as such might if anything be praised rather than criticized. So that rationale for your oppose, in my opinion, makes little sense either. Thus, while I'm sure you cast this !vote in subjective good faith, it is nonetheless senseless, and while it isn't so overtly trollish as to warrant being stricken like its predecessor, it is still the sort of thing that I believe causes damage to this process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? If AustralianRupert did get involved then he would be taking the bait and feeding the troll. He would likely get a few opposes for it. If there are legitimate concerns raised in an oppose vote that need to be answered by the candidate, then they should answer them. However, overly trollish !votes should not be answered, and I'm impressed that Rupert ignored it. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you to Omni Flames for moving this to a more sensible forum but I don't agree #:::::No competition that I'm aware of, yet many other users feel the need to take on the case against Engleham and now, it seems, me. Simply saying "it doesn't matter" or similar would have ended that whole discussion and this one, if not at the start then when a half dozen seasoned editors got involved to waste their time refuting the so-called troll; easy to do and in my opinion what I would want an admin to do. The key wording there "my opinion", not Bbb23's, Newyorkbrad's, HighInBC's or Northamerica1000's opinion. Not much to ask for I think from Rupert or all those that have weighed in. If I thought I'd get a response from the candidate without interference from their supporters I perhaps would have asked the question directly. Newyorkbrad I've considered many things including that throwing in a very famous quote (melodramatic capitalisation as I copy/pasted it and didn't type from scratch) should not perhaps be taken literally and I'm sure anyone that knows me would think senseless is the last think I am but thank you for your attempts at subtle insults. I've stated my reasoning, not liking it isn't a reason for a sysop and others to hint at calling me a troll. In terms of causing damage to this process, I think those comenting may wish to reconsider what this process actually is and get some perspective, because a straw poll on one users ability to handle a few extra tools is not a significant part of what Wikipedia is supposed to be; their comments can do far more lasting damage than anything else. Unless there is someone who wants to direct me to something that would meet the criteria I set out in my original view then there is no further need to clutter the discussion here - Basement12 (T.C) 22:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Basement12: This is the comment you are "seconding" - Universal adulation always suggests there's bodies rotting somewhere, and with a vote count that Kim Jong-il might envy, I'll vote nay just to tip a cold bucket of reality over the bedazzled mob, and keep Rupert on his toes. I shan't believe the dingo did it. - I didn't !vote and don't know either of the editors but hatted it as it was causing disruption and crats can handle it. It's clearly a humorous or trolling attempt to stop a runaway "Support." It's not a real position on Rupert, adminship, babies, dingoes, Australians, Rupert's toes or anything else except to inject a lighthearted observation about process. The trolling was just a bonus so simply ignoring it is best. (I'm tempted not even to reply but I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are serious, I won't be responding further.). --DHeyward (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Basement 12, you personally are not senseless but your oppose rationale is inane, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to think so. It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone struck your !vote out too out on that basis, and I wouldn't lift a finger to stop them. However, I'm concerned that in that event, Engelham would come along and "second" you, and we'd lapse into an indefinite regress (which is even worse than a double redirect) and damage the Space-Time Continuum. Now, that would be Evil and so as a Good Man I must Do Something, and I suppose this comment is Something. More seriously, I hope never to see these sorts of nonsense !votes on the RfA pages again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least this one is based on the editor's actions, namely that the editor didn't respond to a prior oppose and on that basis, I don't know, oppose because they want an administrator who will respond to childish taunts and idiocy? I don't think Basement12 think the oppose was a legitimate oppose but to each their own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basement12, you state that you would strike your vote "with pleasure" if you are pointed in the direction of some positive effort by AustralianRupert. I agree with your sentiment that, if AustralianRupert was active at the time, I too would have liked him to step into the discussion with a comment along the lines of "let Engleham's vote stand, because I trust the closing 'crat to give it appropriate weight".

I say "if AustralianRupert was active at the time" because I think it is worth pointing out the fact that he did not make any edits at all during the time period from Engleham's original vote at 20:10 on May 22nd until the final hatting of the discussion by DHeyward at 8:43 on May 23rd. Engleham cast their vote at 5:40am local time in the Northern Territory (where AustralianRupert lives according to his userpage), and the vote was finally struck by Drmies at 1:30pm NT local time. So I think it is reasonable to assume that AustralianRupert could not act because he was not aware of the drama unfolding. I can't see anywhere in the discussion where this fact has been mentioned.

So, are you willing to strike your own oppose (not withstanding that it is currently struck) on the assumption that AustralianRupert was not aware of the fuss whilst it was occurring? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of The Quixotic Potato's oppose

Oppose AustralianRupert was in a unique position to act like an admin and defuse the situation with a few well-chosen words, but chose not to. I cannot support those who do not speak up when a long-term goodfaithed user with a minority viewpoint gets bullied, censored and is falsely accused of trolling (even by an admin!). Maybe I change my mind; that depends on the answers to the questions of NewYorkActuary and myself. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, I think it is worth noting that AustralianRupert made zero edits during the relevant period. The original oppose was made at 5:40am at AustralianRupert's local time and the discussions lasted for about eight hours. Perhaps he was simply not aware of the drama unfolding? On a separate point, why not wait until you get the answers to the questions before lodging your oppose vote? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is dangerous to agree with me or my sentiments. Engleham left his vote at 20:11 on the 22th. Cyberpower678 struck through it on that same day at 21:54. Between the 22th of May at 21:54 and now AustralianRupert made 16 edits, if I counted correctly. Because I currently am opposed, but like I indicated that may change later (I frequently change my mind). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely regarded as a bad idea to moderate your own RfA. Any admin needs to know when they are too involved to handle a situation. For all you know they did not even see it, how about we give them the benefit of the doubt here instead of assuming the worst? HighInBC 03:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask AustralianRupert to moderate his own RfA; I would've been happy with a simple comment. It seems unlikely that AustralianRupert did not see that struck vote because AustralianRupert made 16 edits (during 3 hours) while it was struck (and I assume AustralianRupert is curious about what happens on this page). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, using your questions to accuse others of violating WP:NPA is extremely unwise. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. Please re-read what I wrote. Thank you, The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You kinda did. When you asked "Do you think that the false accusations of trolling...", which is a bit like asking "Are you still punching your wife?". The question itself makes an assumption of bad faith. It is not side stepping the accusation, it is just putting it into different words. HighInBC 03:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question "Have you stopped beating your wife" contains an unjustified assumption (except if you ask it to someone who has been beating his/her wife of course!). I think it is obvious that Engleham wasn't trolling, but we may disagree on that. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should think the fact that other people disagree with you would be a hint that what is obvious to you is not an accepted assumption. I think you are feeding a troll and feeding them well. The troll says "Nom nom nom, nummy drama, thanks Potato". HighInBC 03:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that sounds like a personal attack. We are both unable to read Engleham's mind, so I have to use the limited information I have available. The words "widely regarded" always remind me of that famous Douglas Adams quote. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The limited information you have available indicates either trolling or joking, neither of which should be taken seriously on an RfA. Why you have chosen to do so has baffled a great number of commenters and participants, including myself. The issue here is not that there is a dissenting opinion, but an unjustified and unjustifiable one. Pointless commentary on an important topic; Should the nominee be granted admin status? You're trying to set the precedent that joke and/or trolling votes should be taken seriously. Your questions have their own assumptions. First you're assuming Engleham wasn't trolling and second you're assuming that the nominee should moderate comments in their own RfA. If the nominee should moderate and unstrike comments are you then going to suggest that the nominee have the power to strike other peoples comments as well? I do however think that there is more than a single troll here and that myself and others are now feeding it in this chain. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The limited information I have available indicates that Engleham used humor to convey a very serious message (and several people have agreed with that message). I don't think I have to defend myself against those unjustified and unjustifiable accusations and personal attacks (implicit or explicit). Again, I did not ask AustralianRupert to moderate anything. Many people who are not admins have left a comment about this situation. Of course striking oppose votes would be very unwise for an RfA candidate, but in this case unstriking that oppose vote and/or commenting on it would've been very wise. I do not like reading editsummaries such as this one. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to re-read my own comment, I apologize for my own personal attack in there. Sorry. I also do not like reading edit summaries such as the one you noted. I agree that there is quite a focus on the fact that an oppose, a poor one though, will tarnish the 100% thing. But only by one person. The majority of what I read in the talk page and here simply deals with the poor reasoning behind the oppose. I think humor here would have been fine if there was substance to back it up. Factual substance, not philosophical. If a candidate were to sit on 100% oppose, rather than 100% support, would the same idea apply to vote support for their nomination without a rationale? Serious question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr rnddude (talk • contribs) 04:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, what you just did takes balls. I love you. And don't worry, I can handle it. I have to think about your question for a bit. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this has been moved to the talkpage maybe I can ask a question. Why are people so obsessed with "the 100% thing"? People with less than 100% support also become moderators afaik (otherwise one single person could sabotage all RfA's). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent for readability) "The 100% thing" is not the main point (although it's not utterly meaningless either). The point is that RfA is a process in which dedicated volunteers offer to take on extra responsibilities for the project. In doing so, they expose themselves and their wiki-records for a week of highly public discussion and scrutiny. Many editors find the process sufficiently fraught with tension that they are reluctant to undergo it, which is widely considered a serious problem (read the talkpage archives of WT:RfA). Those who do throw their hats in the ring are not guaranteed success or even gentle treatment, but there's an increasing consensus that they entitled to be evaluated on their merits, and that if people are going to oppose their adminship, not to do so for frivolous or nonexistent reasons.

Silly oppose !votes with rationales alongg the lines of "oppose because otherwise the candidate will be too popular" and with references to North Korea are not appropriate and are, indeed, trollish in effect if not in intent (and if you read Engleham's talkpage, it becomes clear, in intent as well). This sort of behavior, I still believe, is harmful to the RfA process, and I think your defense of it over the past 24 hours is seriously misguided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the 100% thing not utterly meaningless? Mathematicians say that 99.9999∞% is the same as 100%, right? Shouldn't people with a minority viewpoint also get treated a lot, ehm, gentler than they currently are? I am basically addicted to reading, my father sells books, I have read quite a few of Englehams contributions and my conclusion was that he is not trolling. Have you read User_talk:Engleham#A_comment_I_was_about_to_make_at_the_just_hatted_RFA_talk_page_discussion where Anna Frodesiak wrote (Nota bene: this is quote is part of a longer comment): "[snip] ...You're obviously smart, and I am guessing very sensitive. And you are probably a nice person in real life and would be bags of fun. I just hope you understand why I am communicating with you. It is not to tell you off or be a heavy. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak"? That is the same Anna Frodesiak who wrote this. So I think that something must've changed between 22:48, 22 May 2016 and 02:56, 23 May 2016. To me it seems likely that Anna Frodesiak was reading his contribs during that time. I think his oppose vote was far from frivolous, to be honest my own support vote with a silly joke was far more frivolous than his oppose vote, which used humor to convey a very serious message. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely to pass either way. I don't give a crap about the percentage that it passes - and I don't think anyone else does. That being said - Allowing trolling / joke votes here gives them validity. Please actually read WP:DENY. Trolling here isn't funny, cute, or even original. As with the edit warring earlier - I'd advise you to stop. I know you probably won't listen, and a denial with no grounds in reality ("please edit articles" - yes very good, I'm sure that's chuckle-worthy to someone out there) is pretty likely to follow based on experience thusfar. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Engleham was trolling. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think we got that. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but people keep claiming he was trolling, so I looked at the evidence that is available to me (which took a lot of time) and my conclusion was that he wasn't trolling. I admit that not everyone likes his type of humor. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called humor, in this context, was not appropriate, and if you still don't see that, I'm not sure you have the capacity to participate appropriately in this process yourself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this talkpage? I will quote myself: "I agree that RfA's are a bad place for jokes" & "I said that RfAs are a bad place for jokes". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You describe it as 'humor' - I think that at least on some level you understand it was a joke/troll vote. Which is inappropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQL (talk • contribs)

Parts of the comment were obviously written in jest, which is perhaps unwise in this context, like I wrote before (see my comment dated 05:31, 24 May 2016 for the quotes). But I think that he used humor to convey a serious message. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) RfAs are a stressful and generally unfun experience, and all editors who volunteer to be considered for the admin tools should be treated with respect. Oppose votes are a highly important element of this process, and should be carefully considered. The Quixotic Potato, I'd also suggest that you remove or strike your vote: you are very welcome to your opinion, but it appears to be based either on a misunderstanding of the RfA process or some kind of unrelated point, and is not helping the discussion. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should people with a minority viewpoint also get treated with respect? I think so. And I don't think Engleham's comment was disrespectful towards AustralianRupert. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course minority views should be respected, which is to say there is no shame in being in the minority... but the view needs to be sound and sensible, and not just the fact but the reasons for widespread opposition to it should be considered. From my own experience, in different roles within the project I've been outvoted on lots of things, but when I was in solo dissent, that didn't mean I automatically changed my mind, but it did mean I gave careful attention to what all my colleagues were saying and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assure you that I have given careful attention to what all my colleagues are saying and why, and I assure you that I respect a huge percentage of them (maybe some of them are evil bastards in real life, you never know

, I can only see their contribs onwiki), but I do not always agree with all of them. If you think that my views are not sound and sensible then we can talk about that, but I think I have explained my position and I recently (05:24, 24 May 2016) discovered that you had not yet read this talkpage. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote a comment I made 22:28, 22 May 2016: "I totally understand that people disagree with the vote and the comment. I voted in support of AustralianRupert (because I literally have no reason to oppose). But I do believe that people who disagree with me, or express themselves in ways that not everyone likes, have a right to vote (or at least as much as I do). And if you carefully read the comment (and ignore the parts that cause an emotional reaction) he has a valid point". (emphasis added later). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to quote two more comment I made, because it seems important: "I knew in advance that xe's opinion was unpopular, and that not many people defend those who have differing opinions/are a minority. I am a straight male born in one of the richest countries in the world, I am an atheist, my family has been here for many generations, and people would describe me as "caucasian". With that in mind, please read my userpage.".

and

"Wikipedia editors are a diverse group of people with different mindsets and ideas, and some people disagree with the majority. I think that that in itself has value, even when I am part of the majority.". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have missed the vital point that some people are trying to make. It's not the fact that a minority opinion being held that is the issue. It's the fact that its a nonconstructive opinion that's the issue here. Again I think humor is fine provided that it's grounded in something substantial. The approach of 'this person is too popular, let's knock him down a peg' isn't considered constructive, at least by quite a few people. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I explained before I think that the humor Engleham used was grounded in something very substantial. Far more substantial (or far less frivolous, whatever you wanna call it) than my own support vote. His vote made me think. That is why I wrote: "if you carefully read the comment (and ignore the parts that cause an emotional reaction) he has a valid point". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what was that valid point? all I have been able to read is a combination of 'I dissent because nobody else has' and 'this person is too popular, let's knock him down a peg.' Mr rnddude (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this talkpage? I have already tried to explain what I think his point was and how I interpret his comment. I admitted that I explained it badly, I am not a native speaker, but please scroll up so I don't have to repeat myself again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note - even as a non-native english speaker - your grammar and spelling are exemplary, exceeding that of most native speakers I know. Good work. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate that, especially from you because we do not always agree.

I went to a bilingual school, I live in Amsterdam, and I work in IT. Sometimes I forget to switch back to my native language! I will probably make an embarrassing error soon.

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but probably didn't understand. In any case I think we're getting sidetracked, Engleham's oppose shouldn't be the focus here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, I explained it badly. It is quite difficult to explain. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already qouted Anna Frodesiak, so I should probably quote some other people. These quotes are taken out of context, please read the entire conversation on Engleham's talkpage. User Cullen328 wrote: "...The kerfuffle motivated me to read Engleham's user page and talk page, and the experience was both irritating and perversely enjoyable and maybe a bit enlightening. It seems to me that Engleham is not a troll, though some of the behavior comes off as trollish. I see the editor as a dissident, a thoughtful provocateur, and an iconoclast in the tradition of H. L. Mencken, who is trying to shake established Wikipedians out of their ingrained normal modes of thinking. Engleham's style is the opposite of my own, but I found reading their observations a good use of my time, not a waste. No one need pay attention. After all, newspapers have other pages, radios have off switches, and The Internet has a search box that will take you to billions of other pages if the page in front of your nose offends you. Let us not overreact..."

User RegentsPark wrote: "FWIW, your rationale for the oppose !vote makes sense to me though the !vote itself doesn't. I agree that a 100% support on anything is not ideal because it reduces variance and, as any student of Darwin knows, that is a recipe for death by extinction...". Again, please read the entire conversation to get the context, I am cherrypicking. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change of topic

I am sorry for the triple or pentuple post, however, I think everybody here has been arguing a non issue. This section is supposed to be dedicated to discussion on Quixotic Potato's oppose. Not on the previously ended (or censored as the minority opinion) Engleham oppose. The grounds upon which Quixotic opposed is that in their opinion AustralianRupert failed to prevent another user from being 'bullied, censored and is falsely accused of trolling.' Should we not address this point more than Engleham's own comment (and also Basement's comment). I also note this is specifically directed to Australian Rupert to resolve. Perhaps we should put aside our own beliefs and opinions and let AR comment on this. The rest of the above is really getting bogged down in individual opinions that don't in essence address Quixotic Potato's oppose vote. Regardless of whether Engleham was trolling or being serious, that doesn't seem to be the main point here. All of our comments address whether or not Engleham was trolling (not the issue) and/or whether AR should have intervened (sort of the issue but we're addressing it on their behalf instead of letting them speak up). At least, that is what I see and think. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same scenario as I stated above: a lose-lose proposition for the candidate. Don't say anything and receive an oppose !vote; interject and risk the possibility of being accused of "badgering", and an oppose !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert is a smart guy, and I am convinced that it was possible (especially for someone in his position) to defuse the situation with a few well-chosen words. There are many admins here who could've done the same. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section header, and I left a new comment just above it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good practice for an admin candidate to attempt to moderate their own RfA, even when done very carefully and sensibly - from what I've seen in the past, candidates who do this often end up being accused of throwing their weight around, hassling oppose voters and/or not understanding WP:INVOLVED. More to the point, there is no need for them to do so as the community generally responds to issues in RfAs effectively, as was the case here. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to make a mountain out of a non-existent issue. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A non-issue that other people have turned into something very big, see for example this editsummary. Leaving a comment on your own RfA is not (necessarily) an attempt to moderate your own RfA. The idea that the community responded to the issues in this particular RfA in an effective way is silly (I am using that word euphemistically). WP:INVOLVED is about conflicts of interest. If an RfA candidate helps someone who votes oppose, then what is the conflict of interest? I wrote: "Of course striking oppose votes would be very unwise for an RfA candidate, but in this case unstriking that oppose vote and/or commenting on it would've been very wise.". What I should've said was "Of course striking oppose votes would be very unwise for an RfA candidate, but in this case commenting on (and maybe even unstriking) that oppose vote would've been very wise.". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your stated reason for opposing this candidacy is that AustralianRupert failed to "act like an admin and defuse the situation with a few well-chosen words". Leaving aside the fact that the "oppose" vote was clearly ill-considered, one cannot "act like an admin" without seeking to considerably influence the situation, and "acting like an admin" in your own RfA would not be a good idea given that you are not in control of proceedings at all. By the way, can you please stop fiddling with your posts? It causes a lot of edit conflicts. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native speaker, I hate typos (but I frequently make them myself!), I frequently try to improve my comments and I often disagree with myself; that is why I make more edits than the average native speaker. With the words "act like an admin" I mean trying to defuse the situation (because that is what admins should do). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how AustralianRupert is in a position to "act like an admin and so on." He isn't an admin and technically I think the moderation is supposed to fall to the clerks who aren't necessarily admins (although they could be, I don't remember how that RFC went). Is your contention that acting like an admin meant engaging the oppose? If you want admins who will respond to with quasi-trolling or fully trolling comments with I'm not sure what and hope it doesn't result in egg on their face, that's fine. It seems like the majority here prefer someone who doesn't engage in such antics (which frankly is better than I'd probably do). In that sense, opposing the creation of a heckler's veto makes sense I guess. Feel free to run for RFA on a campaign that you promise to engage in whatever you think should be done if anyone were to oppose your candidacy or at the very least, I'd suggest you write out an essay or something since it's still not clear to anyone what the purpose of that oppose was. - Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the words "act like an admin" I mean trying to defuse the situation (because that is what admins should do). I have attempted to clarify this, maybe that helps. The comment wasn't a trollcomment, I have explained that many times. And I am not the only person who knows that Engleham is not a troll, for example user Cullen328 wrote: "...It seems to me that Engleham is not a troll, though some of the behavior comes off as trollish. I see the editor as a dissident, a thoughtful provocateur, and an iconoclast in the tradition of H. L. Mencken, who is trying to shake established Wikipedians out of their ingrained normal modes of thinking. Engleham's style is the opposite of my own, but I found reading their observations a good use of my time, not a waste..." (please read the entire conversation on Engleham's talkpage). Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF (and maybe this entire talkpage while you are at it). Why ask me to explain a comment that was not written by me? I am not a mindreader. I have tried to explain how I interpret the comment, but if you want to know what it means then I would recommend asking the author of that comment (who is probably a native speaker). I recently wrote: "I am never going to be an admin here. You should read my userpage.". It contains the word fuck eleven times (including motherfucker and motherfucking), and it also contains words like "fags" and "idiot(s)". Luckily I have no desire to become an administrator here. And frankly I wouldn't be suprised if AustralianRupert would seriously doubt his decision to accept an RfA nomination after reading all this, because this was the Wikipedia community at its worst. You guys are totally allowed to disagree with Basement12 and Engleham, but there is no reason to treat them this badly. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just quickly, I did not mean to suggest the AR intervene in this discussion or the previous one. It would be very easy to spin any such intervention against them. What I meant was that AR could (even should) address the questions that Quixotic Potato made. As I recall Quixotic mentioned that he'd base his final decision of oppose or support (or neutral) based on AR's responses to his questions. Is that not correct? A few well chosen words could still 'defuse the situation' even enlightenment regarding his position on our discussions here. That is for them to decide when and if they read the discussion here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no issue to diffuse. A sole oppose vote is not an issue. Disruption is, but that is handled by the community consensus. I gave you the benefit of the doubt yesterday but in the face of overwhelming consensus, you still disrupt to make a point. You didn't oppose yesterday, you edit warred to keep another oppose in place. One seemed sufficient for you, regardless of rationale. Despite not being a native speaker, you presume to grasp a seriousness that native speakers have said is without merit. Please reconsider lest you find yourself in the position of disrupting Wiipedia to make a point. Many have explained this to you in various ways. --DHeyward (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wall of text. Defining all oppose votes as disruption is obviously a bad and dangerous idea. I do not understand why you seem to claim that the fact that I voted is disruptive. Of course I knew that people would disagree with me, so I tried to explain my position as clearly as possible, but I do not think it is disruptive that I have an opinion (which frequenlty changes btw) and that others who disagree ask me questions about it. And WP:POINT does not apply here, I checked. If I, for example, would vote oppose to Tavix and all other RfA candidates from now based on my dissatisfaction with this RfA then that would be pointy, but I have no reason to do that. I voted Support in the other RfA btw. I may not be a native speaker, but I've been told that I am not stupid (or at least not very compared to other potatoes) and that my "grammar and spelling are exemplary" (which is of course far too kind, but I try to express myself correctly) and I did spend a long time checking Engleham's contribs and reading everyone's opinions and responding to them.

I didn't presume that he wasn't a troll, after people claimed that he was I did my homework and checked quite a few of his contributions, and I tried to understand him as a person. Based on all the evidence that was available to me, which is all publicly accessible on Wikipedia, I concluded that Engleham has a different sense of humor than most of us but that he is trying, in his own way, to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. I am certain you can dig up some diffs of him saying something I don't agree with (or even dislike); I found quite a few examples myself. But I sincerely believe that calling him a troll is unjustified and therefore a NPA violation. It's not that simple. Please read what Anna Frodesiak and Cullen328 and RegentsPark wrote on his talkpage. I have seen a couple of Cullen328's contributions in the past (I am a fulltime lurker) and I often agreed with him and I respect his opinion. User Cullen328 wrote: "...It seems to me that Engleham is not a troll, though some of the behavior comes off as trollish. I see the editor as a dissident, a thoughtful provocateur, and an iconoclast in the tradition of H. L. Mencken, who is trying to shake established Wikipedians out of their ingrained normal modes of thinking. Engleham's style is the opposite of my own, but I found reading their observations a good use of my time, not a waste..." (please read the entire conversation on Engleham's talkpage in the section "A comment I was about to make at the just hatted RFA talk page discussion").

I agree with Cullen328. To be honest I prefer Cullen328´s style of communication, but I think that Wikipedia should ideally have a lot of people like Cullen328 and a couple of people like Engleham. I strongly believe that it is worthwhile to protect those who have a minority viewpoint, even when I am in the majority. I can tell you a long story about why I believe that, how that has affected my life and what choices I made based on that belief, but it would be a bit offtopic here. I initially voted support and Engleham voted oppose, but I don´t think that that is a valid reason to dislike him. I actually like a lot of people who disagree with me. I fundamentally disagree with most of the people whose quotes are on my userpage about at least a couple of topics, but still I find those quotes interesting and worthwhile. I dislike people who agree with me 100% of the time, because they do not give me the mental stimulation I crave. Engleham´s comment made me think. I agree that his message could´ve been clearer without the humor, but I believe that that is part of his personality, it is what makes Engleham unique.

And I didn't presume that there was a seriousness that native speakers have said is without merit. I know that Engleham's comment contains a serious message, and other people (who are native speakers) have agreed with that, for example here.

In many cases I go with the flow, I think there are many smart people here (and I hope that they will continue disagreeing with me once in a while, otherwise that would rob me of that chance to learn stuff) and there are many tasks I don't do because other people are doing a much better job than I ever could. You may have noticed I have never written an article, other people are much better at that than I am, but I like fixing typo´s and mindless gnomework. But of course this community isn´t perfect. I believe there is not a single perfect human being, and therefore groups of people can never be perfect. In this case the community (more specifically the vocal minority of that community who treated Basement12 and Engleham so badly) was wrong imho, very wrong. Please note that other people who have spent some time reading Engleham´s contribs have come to a conclusion similar to mine. But don't worry, there are loads of areas on Wikipedia that are doing fine as far as I know and I agree with the majority of Wiki-users on millions of other topics. I think we should all be allowed to have a minority viewpoint once in a while (there are exceptions of course, I have zero respect for certain minority viewpoints, my userpage makes that very clear). And I think that we should treat those with a minority viewpoint far better than Basement12 and Engleham have been treated. Both are goodfaith editors, I checked their edits and I am convinced of that.

Remember, one day you (or someone you like) might be the one in the minority, and get a lot of negative feedback because of that; if you contact me I will defend your right to express your opinion even if I disagree with you (as always there are exceptions to the rule). And yes, even if I think your opinion is stupid.

And yeah, of course that editwar was fucking stupid, and I regret that I didn't handle that better. Ignore the mitigating circumstances, those only make my mea culpa seem less real, and I mean it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest, this conversation is getting nowhere. It's time for you all to drop the stick, and walk away. Go work on something else, and don't waste your time on such a pointless discussion. It's fairly obvious that Rupert will become an administrator, and the oppose votes won't change that. Even if they would, 'crats aren't stupid, that's why we elected them. They know enough to give !votes the weight they deserve. Additionally, there's consensus here that !votes should not be struck. Further discussion here is counterproductive to the point of ridiculous. Nothing useful will come out of any of this, and I would even request that a non-involved user close this discussion to avoid further inflammatory comments (I would do so myself, but I commented here several times). Thank you, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wish that the people who opposed the opposers would've dropped their stick a long time ago. It is totally fine to disagree with a vote, and it is also fine to ask the voter questions about it (and perhaps even to try to change their mind). But the way Basement12 and Engleham have been treated is not OK. And I agree that this discussion should be finished. I have tried to explain my POV, if anyone has any questions they can probably find the answers somewhere on this page. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert left a comment and I changed my vote back to support. One person apologized to me, but I believe that several people should apologize to Basement12 and Engleham. *mic drop* The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, where people will argue with you if you take an indefensible position. If you don't like people pointing out faults in your arguments then put a little effort into not making arguments that are not faulty. You expect an apology because people didn't accept your senselessness with a smile? I don't know where you got the idea that all opinions are equal in the eyes of the community, some opinions are embraced and others are criticized, and if really bad they are criticized heavily.

Even if we do let people oppose for any reason regardless of sense or fairness we should at the very least still point out that they lack sense and fairness. Otherwise we should just switch to secret ballot. HighInBC 14:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would point out a fault in my arguments. If that was the case then our interactions would be useful to me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The weather's certainly changed... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]