Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MER-C 3

Validity

 * Odds are that a "user" with all of 25 edits in not an actual Wikipedian - using that word very deliberately. Suggest someone strike this !vote, alas. Collect (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reported the user at WP:UAA because his username contains a scatological expletive. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Chances are that they may just be Indian, as many Indian names contain that particular scatalogical expletive. Epicgenius (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't help feeling this is getting faintly ridiculous. Darshit is a Hindu given name meaning "paying respect" (just Google it), so the UAA filing is careless and rude. The editor made a few good faith gnomish edits in widely varied articles during December 2012 and then disappeared until this oppose. It doesn't look like a SPA to me. Evidence of sock puppetry appears very slim going on non-existent. I've no idea why he came here to oppose, but it's not like it's going to change the result. --Stfg (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now, there's unanimous support. This oppose vote, if valid, would have made it 106 support votes versus one oppose vote, but it's not, so let's leave this be. Epicgenius (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, in addition to the fact that they gave no reason for the oppose. That is definitely a sign of sockpuppetry: to just disappear for 13 months and come back just to oppose a specific RfA. Yes we should all WP:AGF, but this is at least semi-fishy.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 21:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the plain English language meaning of the username is sufficient to disallow it on enwikipedia, regardless of what it may mean in Hindi. Extending the logic of any decision otherwise creates a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through. We will end up allowing the scatological expletive by itself as a username because it's the name of three villages in Iran, or a quite similar expletive as the name of a village in Austria. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Epicgenius (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there..  Rcsprinter  (lecture)  @ 11:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why bots are required to make reports on Usernames for administrator attention/Bot rather than blocking users directly. It doesn't mean that human editors should ignore the plain English language meaning of words. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not block people just because their real name might offend someone. This is established practice, and if you disagree, please start a discussion at WT:U, WP:VPP or some other suitable forum. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure hope doesn't cross paths with anyone with the last name Slocum or Fagan.  Dwpaul   Talk   01:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be worse&hellip; Epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely! Dloh cierekim  08:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please may I undo the indenting of this !vote, or (better) would someone uninvolved do it? The original grounds (that it's an SPA) have been refuted; the inquiry about socking on their talk page is just a fishing expedition as far as we know; the argument that it spoils what would otherwise (at least so far) be a unanimous yes is trying to control the course of events on the basis of nothing more than "I don't like it"; and the complaint that this person's probable real name contains a syllable that is also a nasty word in English is rampant anglo-centrism and one of the worst cases of incivility I've yet seen on Wikipedia. This is all too controlling, and it has gone on too long, guys. --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ This seems to be off-topic on the RfA page itself now, the topic being the rationale for the oppose, rather than its validity or otherwise. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, DavidLeighEllis has "hell" in it, and should probably be blocked as a disruptive username. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I need to be blocked, too (at least, if you're a British English speaker) and so does every American named "Randy"... :-D --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time that DavidLeighEllis has raised ridiculous objections to perfectly innocent usernames; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Ansh666 and Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 20. David, please knock it off. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I must admit to enjoying his Forbid satanic usernames nonsense a great deal, in light of his own embedded satanic reference. WP:PETARD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The striking of the sole oppose
is just plain wrong, meaningless, and overly reactive. Is is possible this is a user who edits as an anon for the most part and logged in out of necessity. It is hard for them to add a rationale after blocking. They are not, strictly speaking a SPA, as they have edited (infrequently) over time. Whether they support their oppose or not, it is hardly likely to affect the outcome. Dloh cierekim  02:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "blocking"? They aren't blocked (see their block log) - do you just mean that their comment was struck? Also, pinging Sportsguy17 and Stfg, as users who did the striking and indenting, respectively. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought someone had blocked them. That's good to read. Thanks, Dloh  cierekim  03:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I left the participant a Talkback notice yesterday. The closer will undoubtedly give the oppose appropriate weight, and it may be appropriate to strike through again before then (if consensus is clear here) if the participant doesn't return with their reasoning. In the mean time, they still have a few days to return and comment again. I hope that's alright. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It was unnecessary — the !vote should have been left alone from the outset, ideally without discussion. Anyone with an account is free to oppose on whatever grounds they feel necessary, including none at all. benmoore 11:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The whole "not a real Wikipedian" rationale is odious, elitist, and not consistent with a collegial work environment. Return to offer a rationale? After the belittling nature of the striking affair? I would not think so. Dloh  cierekim  16:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I disagree and would have left the vote stricken. An entirely unexplained oppose !vote that is the account's sole edit in more than a year warrants the most careful scrutiny. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FTR, one can entirely agree with  An entirely unexplained oppose !vote that is the account's sole edit in more than a year warrants the most careful scrutiny yet oppose striking, absent a clear reason for striking, The circumstances hint that there may be such a reason, but a hint, even a strong one is not a reason.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to point out also that there were several votes of support that were also "entirely unexplained" (though I assume the reputations of those !voting may be well known to all here). It was only (I assume) because of the challenge to the dissenter's username (and their dissention) that anyone looked closely at their edit history. Assume good faith.  Dwpaul  Talk   22:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * if some well-known, well-respected editor with tens of thousands of edits had made an unexplained oppose, would you also want that to be struck? To what effect? Given an unexplained oppose from anyone, to what extent would you want a crat to be influenced by whether or not some third party had come along to strike it? The editor is entitled to vote, and striking is no more than a smack-down. It's the thin end of a wedge that leads to allowing editors to strike any expressed in terms they personally disapprove of. And I echo what  said. --Stfg (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's not the thin edge of a wedge, it's simply the right thing to do. It's not a binding precedent, just as "otherstuffexists" is not a strong rationale. -- Scray (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the striking was justified. What does someone with 26 edits know about adminship? We should have a minimum edit count requirement for voting in RFAs. Perhaps 1000 edits. There should be a certain level of competency.  INeverCry   03:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This idea in general is good, but perhaps not 1000, that may be too high [in some to most cases] IMO. Some users catch on to community processes quite quickly. In this case, striking was justified. The fact that this user hadn't edited in 13 months and came back just to oppose and gave no rational. Honestly, I originally struck the vote due to not only it having no rational, but the fact that the user returned from a 13 month hiatus just to oppose is to the very least peculiar, if not concerning. Sure, there are supporters who !vote without rationals, but that's only 2 or 2 of the 120 current supporters and both are experienced editors, one of which is an admin herself. There's a reason behind all of this. As a side note, I am not impressed with the UAA report. That I agree with Stfg about.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 03:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I expect more detailed rationales from "opposers" than "supporters" at an RfA. A brief "support", especially from an experienced editor, indicates general agreement with the nomination statements and approval of the candidate's response to questions. An effective "oppose" should counter the nominations, critique the answers, or point out substantive problems with the candidate's editing history. When you combine the lack of a rationale with the negligible edit history in this case, the significance of the "oppose" evaporates, as I see it.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and I don't object to discounting it, but that's a crat's job. It's the striking I object to. If ordinary editors are to pronounce on the validity admissibility of the votes of other editors, it needs to be strictly rule-based. Socks and banned accounts, yes; invent a minimum-edit-count rule, sure; but "semi-fishy" ... oh please!  had already challenged the opposer to give reasons. That was plenty. --Stfg (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only do i agree that it would be incorrect (within the current guidelines) to strike this !vote, but as far as I can see there's absolutely no reason to either. I cannot imagine that a crat would pay any attention to a one-word !vote like this, without any justification, even if it would come from a well-established editor with several thousand edits, let alone from a once-a-year editor. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that it's going to influence the outcome of this RfA anyway — one can say with certainty that MER-C will pass this RFA. Epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)