Meta talk:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds

For the record

1. There were three votes,diff, diff, and diff, before this voter'sdiff with no justification.
2. Within two minutes of that vote,diff it was attacked,diff mentioning lack of "any rationality."
3. After that attack, within twenty minutes of the vote,diff there were two more votes with no justification,diff, and diff.
4. Another attack followed,diff mentioning "a history of trolling," a violation the NPOV, since no mention is made of any accomplishments on Wikimedia projects.
5. Two votes are poorly or very poorly justified.diff, and diff
6. The author of the first attack on the votediff lowers the bar with a reiterated personal attackdiff, diff, and diff, calling the voter a "Troll."
7. Voting continues with poorly or very poorly justified votesdiff, or no justification whatsoever.diff
8. The voting is taking place in a page that is supposed to "hosts requests for requesting administrator access on the Meta-Wik," Meta:Requests for adminship.
9. Nowhere in that page there is the slightest reference to "nominations for adminship."
10. The afore mentioned arguments make the whole pocedure devoid of any credibility, legitimacy, and amoral.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 02:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Supporters usually don't need to explain why they support, it's supposed that they agree with the nominator. Instead of writing this accusation it would be easier to explain your reasons for opposing. --Nemo 09:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And reasonless opposes get most likely discounted by bureaucrats. -Barras 10:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Thank you so very much for your kind and civil comments.
2. It is perfectly understandable that supporters "usually" "don't need to explain why they support" because "it's supposed that they agree with the nominator."
3. Thank you so much for making that so perfectly clear, easy to understand, and providing those not so well informed with such an obvious interpretation of the votes.
4. Following the same line of reasoning, it should be easy to understand that opposers "don't need to explain why they oppose" because "it's supposed that they disagree with the nominator."
5. In both cases, no explanation is given as to why they agree or disagree.
6. Any references to voting rules in any circumstances or organizations that have different requirements for voters based on the nature of their vote will be highly appreciated.
7. "Instead of writing this accusation it would be easier to explain your reasons for opposing." "And reasonless opposes get most likely discounted by bureaucrats." are personal opinions that deserve respect.
8. Others and different opinions deserve exactly the same respect.
9. Instead of writing personal opinions, administrators should do what the nominee says he is doing ("watching Meta quite closely") and promises to do ("help out where [they] can."), but this, of course, is just some user's personal opinion.
10. Instead of writing personal opinions, administrators should address points 2, 4, 6, 9, and 10, but this, of course, is just some user's personal opinion.
11. The suggestion "to the closing bureaucrat [to] completly ignore this !vote as void."diff is absolutely appalling and an insult to the intelligence and freedom of decision of the remaining fellow bureaucrats.
12. The above mentioned comment remains also to be addressed.
13. There is no point in spewing all these attacks and venom in an election with such a foretold conclusion.
14. There is no point in wasting time commenting a lone opposing vote in an election with such a foretold conclusion.
15. Vote and let vote. There is no disrespect and none was intended while casting an opposing vote with no further comments. As for justification, please see point 4 of this comment.
16. Nobody earns any respect, treating others with disrespect or failing to use with reasonable fairness and in a timely fashion the tools he or she has available. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 14:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to the person who called you a "troll". I don't think you are. I do think you're wrong about almost everything and have no working understanding whatsoever of Wikimedia or any of the projects, but that is a disagreement. I firmly believe you are proceeding in entirely good faith. Any real troll would have given up long ago - David Gerard 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, I'd say that his persistence makes him a persistent troll. The term "troll" applies to his quite clearly in this case; he came to this RfA, opposed without a reason with the sole intention of getting a reaction. He then wasted his time and everyone else's by writing walls of text here. It is very important to assume good faith, however, the application of AGF should never disrupt the wiki, as it was doing here. That user was here solely to argue and get reactions of out people - that is a troll, and he has been dealt with as one. Beyond that, can we please move away from this discussion? This isn't what an RfA's talk page was meant for. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)