Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ctjf83 2

Stats
Edit stats as of 19:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC) from X!'s edit counter. → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← Username:	Ctjf83 User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Aug 06, 2006 03:07:06 Unique pages edited:	12,207 Average edits per page:	3.25 Live edits:	37,225 Deleted edits:	2,416 Total edits (including deleted):	39,641

Namespace Totals

Article	19214	51.62% Talk	3249	8.73% User	1463	3.93% User talk	9303	24.99% Wikipedia	2718	7.30% Wikipedia talk	595	1.60% File	145	0.39% File talk	10	0.03% Template	307	0.82% Template talk	138	0.37% Category	48	0.13% Category talk	1	0.00% Portal	18	0.05% Portal talk	14	0.04%

Month counts

2006/08	6	2006/09	0	2006/10	0	2006/11	0	2006/12	0	2007/01	230	2007/02	190	2007/03	11	2007/04	58	2007/05	259	2007/06	170	2007/07	261	2007/08	325	2007/09	1271	2007/10	743	2007/11	1093	2007/12	1327	2008/01	1234	2008/02	658	2008/03	964	2008/04	91	2008/05	99	2008/06	268	2008/07	483	2008/08	3604	2008/09	1301	2008/10	1350	2008/11	1179	2008/12	148	2009/01	33	2009/02	106	2009/03	1284	2009/04	1037	2009/05	480	2009/06	535	2009/07	304	2009/08	696	2009/09	876	2009/10	722	2009/11	482	2009/12	557	2010/01	686	2010/02	1527	2010/03	1857	2010/04	691	2010/05	632	2010/06	912	2010/07	634	2010/08	644	2010/09	1050	2010/10	1677	2010/11	750	2010/12	1192	2011/01	536

Top edited pages

(hide)Article 678 - Davenport,_Iowa 264 - List_of_characters_in_Family_Guy 223 - Springfield_(The_Simpsons) 204 - Peter_Griffin 200 - Stewie_Griffin 194 - Iowa 172 - Homer_Simpson 163 - Quad_Cities 163 - List_of_recurring_characters_in_The_Simpsons 158 - Bart_Simpson

(hide)Talk 73 - Davenport,_Iowa 71 - Family_Guy 58 - Stewie_Griffin 51 - List_of_characters_in_Family_Guy 43 - The_Simpsons 42 - Glee_(TV_series) 35 - Springfield_(The_Simpsons) 35 - Glenn_Quagmire 35 - Brian_Griffin 35 - Men_who_have_sex_with_men

(hide)User 763 - Ctjf83 217 - Ctjf83/Sandbox 107 - Ctjf83/Pictures 58 - Ctjf83/Sandbox_2 44 - Ctjf83/vector.js 38 - Ctjf83/Ref 28 - Ctjf83/Watchlist 15 - Ctjf83/GayPride 11 - AmiDaniel/VP/Approval 10 - Ctjf83/Admin_Coaching

(hide)User talk 953 - Ctjf83 342 - Scorpion0422 127 - Theleftorium 124 - Pedro_thy_master 75 - Frickative 72 - Dusti/Userpage 71 - Cirt 70 - Dominik92 63 - Grande13 63 - Cirt/Archive_3

(hide)Wikipedia 174 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 86 - Huggle/Whitelist 66 - Good_article_nominations 51 - Requests_for_page_protection 46 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention 44 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring 36 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 31 - Help_desk 25 - Administrators'_noticeboard 24 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_9

(hide)Wikipedia talk 165 - WikiProject_The_Simpsons 98 - WikiProject_LGBT_studies 65 - WikiProject_Family_Guy 22 - WikiProject_Television/Glee_task_force 22 - WikiProject_Iowa 15 - Requests_for_adminship 14 - WikiProject_The_Simpsons/Featured_topic_Drive/seas... 10 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion 9 - Twinkle 9 - WikiProject_Iowa/Government

(hide)File 7 - Matthew_Shepard.jpg 6 - Dr_Pepper.jpg 5 - REGGAE_REPORT_VOL_13_NO._4_1995_Bob_Marley.jpg 5 - Smart_and_Smarter.jpg 4 - Boy_Meets_Curl.jpg 3 - Family_Guy_Barnstar.jpg 3 - US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2008.png 3 - DufflessSimp.jpg 3 - States_With_Wells_Fargo_Banks.png 3 - Steve_Smith_(American_Dad!).jpg

(hide)File talk 9 - Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg 1 - Large_Marge.png

(hide)Template 32 - Quad_Cities 31 - Same-sex_unions 21 - Family_Guy 18 - Infobox_Simpsons_season_19_episode_list 12 - WPSIMPSONS_Navigation 11 - Simpsons_characters 10 - Same-sex_unions_in_the_United_States 10 - User_WikiProject_Glee 10 - The_Cleveland_Show 9 - The_Simpsons

(hide)Template talk 44 - Same-sex_unions 34 - Infobox_character 25 - Did_you_know 5 - Infobox_company 4 - Infobox_NRHP 3 - Same-sex_unions_in_the_United_States 3 - Talk_archive_navigation 2 - Infobox_settlement 2 - Simpsons_characters 2 - Infobox_television

(hide)Category 3 - Glee_articles_by_quality 2 - Unknown-importance_Glee_articles 2 - Cities_in_the_Quad_Cities 2 - Mid-importance_Glee_articles 1 - High-importance_Glee_articles 1 - American_people_of_the_War_of_1812 1 - Rock_Island,_Illinois 1 - WikiProject_Glee_members 1 - WikiProject_Glee 1 - Top-importance_Glee_articles

(hide)Category talk 1 - LGBT-related_television_episodes

(hide)Portal 5 - The_Simpsons/Character_quote 4 - The_Simpsons/Character_quote/42 3 - The_Simpsons/Character_quote/46 1 - The_Simpsons/Character_quote/43 1 - Business_and_economics/Selected_article/December_2... 1 - LGBT/Quotes 1 - Society/Selected_article/1 1 - North_America/Intro 1 - The_Simpsons/Upcoming_episodes

(hide)Portal talk 8 - The_Simpsons/Character_quote 4 - The_Simpsons 1 - Geography 1 - LGBT

From Keepscases' oppose

 * Moved from main RFA page. Regards  So Why  09:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So, let's take all the userboxes which say "This user is a (Christian|Jew|Rastafarian|Pastafarian|Wiccan|whateverthehellhaveyou)." Implicitly, they are specifying that all those who believe in a different religion or no religion are wrong. The candidate here is just specifying he believes in no religion. The fact that I agree with him has nothing to do with it here (and in fact, my only adminship nomination was for a Christian pastor who made no secret of what his beliefs were). But opposing someone because you disagree with them is disgraceful. Every time I say "I disagree with you on...", I might be offending your "deeply held beliefs". I still have every right to disagree and to say I do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose based on anti-God userbox. It's shocking and hypocritical that a user who has an anti-bullying song featured prominently on his userpage, and has a userbox claiming he "doesn't understand mean people", would display such a confrontational and offensive userbox calling God a "myth" or "superstition".  There is nothing wrong with being an atheist, but there is something wrong with unnecessarily belittling others' strongly held beliefs.  No one with an attitude like that should serve as an administrator.  And in case this turns into some Christians-against-homosexuals debate, someone with an anti-gay userbox would be (rightfully) shot down too, and we all know it. Keepscases (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec add to post) It doesn't attack any specific user/religion. And the community clearly disagrees with you. Frankly I'm a little appalled you would compare it to actual anti-gay harassment on my user and talk page. I work with several users who have religious userboxes on their page, and none of them have said anything about it. I won't mention users, unless it is requested. I encourage you to find an instance where I have belittled/harassed, etc anyone for any religious views or made such an edit to reflect that. C T J F 8 3  chat 23:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It attacks anyone who believes in God. And your "community" statement is a strawman--I think you should have the right to display just about anything you want, but I sure have the right to judge you on it.  Please do not ask me for an instance of when you have belittled anyone when I am explicitly opposing you for just such an instance.Keepscases (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into a big discussion with you on here, but it does not attack users who believe in god. It doesn't say "This user believes everyone who believes in god is an idiot" or anything similar. C T J F 8 3  chat 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What a silly reason to oppose. Should we also oppose people who display this userbox or this one or this one?  Each of those three are far more offensive to me than the one on which you based your oppose.  If any user had that many userboxes on their user page, it would be difficult to not find at least one with which you don't agree or find offensive.  Get over it, it doesn't affect the encyclopedia or prove that the candidate is impolite or belittling.  Snotty Wong   verbalize 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't attack anybody. You're just looking for a reason to oppose. I happen to agree with the userbox's sentiment. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohh gawd! How can reasonably oppose him based on a user box? That makes no sense. I'm glad nobody is falling for that twisted logic. Likeminas (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In his defense, I believe Keepscases' oppose was not based strictly on the user box, but rather because of the sensibilities of someone who would put out such a conflicting and provocative message at the same time displaying a peace, love, and happiness image, would not be fit to be an administrator (in his view). His oppose was based on the candidate's character, which is a valid oppose. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, we should let him respond for himself. I personally don't see how peace, love and happiness conflicts with no believing in god. But I guess this is not the place to discuss that. In any case, the assumption that one should vote for someone based on their character and not on the merits of their contributions is a dreadful prospect. We might as well ask others Wikipedians, Would you have a beer with this guy? and based on that make them administrators. Likeminas (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are missing a point that I am making very clearly. There is nothing wrong with not believing in God.  People may believe whatever they wish.  However, crossing out "GOD" and calling Him a "myth" or "superstition" is intentionally disrespectful and belittling.  It helps make Wikipedia a more hostile place.  How do you think the candidate would feel about a userbox with the word "GAY" crossed out? Keepscases (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "there is something wrong with unnecessarily belittling others' strongly held beliefs". Indeed. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have examples of my belief affecting my editing? dealing with users? remaining civil? I challenge you to find some. C T J F 8 3  chat 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrators are trusted to deal with conflicts. Not unnecessarily inflame them with divisive userboxes that offend people's strongly held beliefs. That you can't see that and haven't pulled the userbox since Keepcases' oppose is concerning. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...And I won't pull it. Would you also have me pull my pro gay marriage userbox because it might "offend people's strongly held beliefs" on marriage? What about my pro Obama one cause it might offend people, or my stricter gun control, pro universial health care, pro stem cell research, pro-choice, my support of smoking bans in public places. Should I pull all those too? as I pointed out, the community snow kept the atheist userbox. And as you'll notice, you actually have to look and scroll down pretty far on my page to see any of these userboxes. How about I get rid of the first gay pride user box, remove the flag at the top, and change my signature, cause people might not like it. C T J F 8 3  chat 02:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you support a candidate who had a userbox with the word "GAY" crossed out and the verbiage, "Homosexuality is disgusting and sinful"? Keepscases (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comparison is invalid. My userbox doesn't say "christians/jews/muslims/whatever are disgusting for believing in god" Go ahead and create a userbox that says "this user believes homosexuality is immoral" with the word "Gay" crossed out. Your example is comparable to saying blacks/asians/hispanics are "disgusting" completely different then my userbox not specifying a religion. Anyway, I'm done with this, and your attempts to inflame me. Good day, C T J F 8 3  chat 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My comparison is most certainly not invalid; my proposed userbox is intentionally confrontational and disrespectful, just like your real one is. You didn't answer my question, but I don't for one minute believe you'd support a candidate who had even your hypothetical "'this user believes homosexuality is immoral' with the word 'Gay' crossed out" userbox.  I know I wouldn't.  Thanks for defending your right to make Wikipedia a more hostile environment. Keepscases (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen a lot of crazy and incredibly stupid things happen at RfAs. People have strongly held views about things I find utterly inconsequential, and I'm sure things I have strong views on, other people might find utterly inconsequential, and might think are crazy and incredibly stupid. We're dealing with people, and people like getting inflamed and picking sides and fighting, even if just for the chance to fight. Religion and homosexuality, two touchy issues, have inflamed this even worse. All of this, however, is irrelevant to the RfA. The connections between this userbox and Ctjf83's editing history are tenuous at best. All that being said, I think that it actually speaks well for Ctjf83 that even after being relentlessly hounded, he hasn't backed down. So long as he's acting within policy, resilience is a trait I like to see in candidates.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The traits of doing needlessly inflammatory things and refusing to retract them when others in good faith say they're offensive are very relevant to whether someone would be a suitable administrator. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The point here is that this oppose is based entirely on the flawed (but surprisingly pervasive) notion that religion holds some kind of elevated, privileged status above other topics, whereby it cannot and should not be publicly ridiculed in any way. Richard Dawkins writes that "A widespread assumption, which nearly everybody in our society accepts - the non-religious included - is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other."  He follows it up with a poignant quote from Douglas Adams:
 * "Religion...has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!'  If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it.  If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it.  But on the other hand if somebody says 'I musn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.  Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe - no, that's holy? ... Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why these ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."
 * If you think about it from a reasonable perspective, there is nothing inherently confrontational or offensive about declaring that you believe God to be a myth or a superstition. Comparing the userbox to another which states that gays are disgusting or black people are stupid is an invalid comparison, because being gay or black is not a conscious choice you make.  Religion (or lack thereof) is simply a belief, something you consciously choose to either believe in or not.  You have the right to believe that there is a bearded man in the clouds who grants your wishes, and I have the right to believe that it's a completely fabricated story created millenia ago for the purposes of gaining power and controlling the populace.  We both have an equal right to express our beliefs.  I think that in this particular case, Ctjf83 might arguably have an even greater right than either of us to proclaim his/her beliefs in this matter, when you take into consideration the abject manner in which many major religions have historically treated homosexuals.  There is zero evidence that Ctjf83's lack or religious beliefs has previously inflamed arguments or hindered his/her ability to deal with editorial conflicts.  Until you can provide such evidence, this oppose is completely invalid, as are any others based on the same premise below.  Snotty Wong   converse 15:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, SnottyWong, my oppose is not "invalid", no matter how much you wish it to be. Please do not go on and on about everyone's "right to express their beliefs", which no one is denying, and then try and take away my own right to cast a vote at RfA.  I frankly don't think administrators should be in the business of "publicly ridiculing" anything, and it's unfortunate that the candidate did not choose a more respectful way to "proclaim his beliefs".  Keepscases (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To express the opinion that gods are myths is not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination the same thing as to attack those who think otherwise, any more than to express the opinion that gods exist is to attack those who disagree. It appalls me that anyone can oppose adminship because the candidate expresses the view that gods are myths. (And let's be perfectly clear: that is exactly what the user box says. To make out that it belittles or ridicules people who disagree is a complete misrepresentation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Our own article on superstition says. "Superstition is a credulous belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge. The word is often used pejoratively to refer to folk beliefs deemed irrational". Many religions themselves see superstitions as sinful. How on earth, then, can calling God a "superstition" be anything other than offensive to those who have a deeply held, and in their view reasoned, belief in God? --Mkativerata (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see how any of my views affect my editing/possible admin work. I'm still waiting for examples of my atheist views has caused me to be uncivil to anyone who is religious. In fact, I regularly work with several users with religious userboxes who have never even mentioned this. C T J F 8 3  chat 17:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In life, as well as on Wikipedia, when someone says "What you've said is hurtful", you have basically two options. Immediately argue with them and say, "no it isn't", or try to understand where they're coming from, and why they think it's hurtful. I find the latter option works surprisingly well if you're interested in defusing, rather than escalating, a conflict. 28bytes (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good advice, 28bytes, and I would encourage C to embrace it. But I think there is a non-existent problem here.  As I understand it (and I'll admit, I'm no expert on Wikipedia), admins are not supposed to use their "powers" in such areas as they have an editing interest.  As long as C does not block someone editing the articles on which he (CTJ) is working as well, what does it matter that he has a userbox calling Jesus a myth?  Are his edits on Quad Cities suspect because of his beliefs or preferences?  How do you inflame someone in an editing conflict other than by what you say in the course of discussing the matter at hand?  Userboxes do not inflame discussions on talk pages, unless someone chooses to bring them up, in which case, the person who brings up the box is the problem, not the person with the box. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, please don't misunderstand: I don't think him having that userbox, or any other, means his mainspace editing is suspect. The concern I have (which I mentioned in my neutral), is that his immediate response to being challenged on the userbox is to argue back. I think that shows poor judgment for two reasons: first, in his previous RfA, there was this exact same issue, where somebody was offended by a userbox (in that case, one calling a politician "a worthless piece of shit"), and his response was "Ok, my personal opinion of the president has no bearing on how will I will be an admin. So people not agreeing with what I say is not a good reason to oppose." That RfA did not succeed, in part because people thought that the userbox was needlessly provocative. It seems that opportunity to learn that some userboxes – rightly or wrongly – needlessly antagonize people was not taken. Second, in a collaborate environment like Wikipedia, and especially for administrators, it's important to pick your battles. Why battle over a userbox? Why try to tell people they're wrong to be offended? Nobody's going to say, "oh, yes, you're correct, I should not be offended." Let's take a look at Panyd's RfA. The first oppose there was someone who objected to a userbox on Panyd's userpage. Her response was to remove it. The result? That opposer withdrew the oppose, and Panyd passed unanimously. A second opportunity to learn from history, it seems, that Ctjf83 failed to take advantage of. In the grand scheme of things, userboxes are incredibly unimportant. What's important is how a candidate reacts to being challenged, and in this case, I believe he acted poorly by not even attempting to see the challenger's point of view, wrong though it might be. The fact that he's willing to battle over something so unimportant, even at the possible expense of failing in his bid for adminship, concerns me. The WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that others have alluded to seems evident here, and I think that's something he's going to have to work on whether he passes here or not. I hope this explains my comment, and I apologize for the TL;DRness of it. 28bytes (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary; I've never confused "concise" with "short", and your answer was the former, regardless of its length. Your good faith is obvious, and appreciated.  Your point is a reasonable one, to be sure.  So to me, in considering your points, I ask myself, how close to perfect must an admin candidate be?.  Your comments point out quite clearly that CT could have handled this better, and given that how admins approach conflict, this is a valid line of discussion.  But while this RFA has gone on, I've been familiarizing myself a little bit more with the process, including reading the discussion page.  It appears to me that one of the problems with this whole process, and one of the reasons why it is perceived to be failing (not CT's specifically, but the RFA process in general) is that candidates for the mop are being held to far higher standards than in past years.  Everyone over there on that talk page bemoans the shortage of candidates for RFA, and I think that this is one of the reasons.  You've brought up what I will acknowledge is the strongest argument against CT, but does your point mean that he'll likely be a poor administrator?  This very process obviously is very tense (and I know, looking this over, that I'll never put myself in the same position), and when one has a history of being belittled, and then one's suitability gets called out over a) a userbox and b) a four-hour mistake on ending a deletion discussion, then I think it's rather natural--rather human, I'll say--to get a bit testy.  So no, CT apparently does not walk on water.  But he is productive, courteous in his dealings with others, and very well-intended.  Some admins will be better than others.  But we (apparently, judging from the talk page) need more of them, and maybe if CT turns out to be only an average admin rather than a great one, then aren't we better off?  It just looks to me like this process leaves no room for non-Messiahs.HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How close to perfect must an admin candidate be? is a good question, and I don't have a good answer for it. I will say that from what I've seen from his contribution history, Ctjf83 has a lot of positive attributes, and has done a lot of good work here, and I don't want to discount that. And I know being an RfA candidate isn't a fun or relaxing way to pass the time, so I can empathize with why he might get a little testy. That's why, despite my concerns about the battleground mindset I've seen here, I'm not in the oppose column at this point. But I think those concerns – and to a greater or lesser degree, the concerns others have brought up – are valid, so I can't support yet either. But this RfA's still in its early hours, and I think the outcome of this is still largely in Ctjf83's hands. How he chooses to approach it will be the key. 28bytes (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you do. But you shouldn't call religious people superstitious which is, especially for religious people, a very perjorative term (I'm more willing to live with "myth"). For instance, many Muslims would consider it tantamount to the greatest sin of all. No-one's asking for silence, just a bit more sensitivity and understanding. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that holding the belief that religion is a myth or superstition is as inviolate as belief in a religion. Sure, if the box said "XYZ religion is a Myth" that would be problematic. However, explaining your personal beliefs n a non-direct way is reasonable and non-aggressive. Imagine two people meeting in a room. One says "I believe God is watching over us", the other "I believe God is a myth and superstition". Is the latter the offensive one? This is essentially the argument made above, and I find it highly disturbing (particularly as the thrust of the argument is that such a comment is insensitive, whilst ironically failing to recognise that it can cut both ways).
 * I think that the userbox has an unfortunate use of an image with the word God in it... the implication is that religion and God is the main superstition which the user does not believe in, but it is also just as likely to be a specific example of a general point (akin to putting an image of Jesus in an "I am a Christian" userbox). It's not a userbox I agree with (preferring an affirmative on rational thinking than the negative this advocates). I don't think it was intended insensitively; there are valid comments above suggesting the candidate should empathise with why the box *could* be insensitive, but the reverse is also true and it is entirely reasonable for the "other side" to empathise with why people might feel this box is perfectly polite and non-aggressive. (harline atheists and religious individuals share a lot of characteristics, the most common one being a sngle minded inability to conceive that an opposing point of view could ever be held, resulting in a sneery comdemnation)
 * Religion is always a hot button issue, with people polarised over it - taking easy offence at every term and avoiding rational discussion (yes, both sides). The original oppose argument has been seized on dramatically and taken from a reasoned argument about the candidates attitude with an example (one I personally disagree with, but legit nonetheless) to the usual religion/anti-religion free-for-all. Let's just cut it out now and observe #2 of the three laws of the internet "Discussing religon, politics or sexuality always results in a cluster fuck, avoid"

Namaste :) --Errant (chat!) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The trick is to pick something that's obscure enough that no one knows what it is. The one userbox on my talkpage is extremely polarizing, but it's a sufficiently unknown topic to the English-speaking world that very few people would care; those that do would most likely agree with me, since it's rather anti-junta.  But just like my userbox doesn't mean I'd be intolerant of Burmese people, neither does the candidate's userbox mean he'd be intolerant of editors who have some sort of faith.  I'm a strong agnostic myself; I'm no atheist, and I'm in no way put off by that userbox.  I have better things to worry about, like maybe the articles in the encyclopedia.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)