Struck oppose and followup[edit]

  1. Oppose looked through the logs, triggered a number of spam block list logs --Cupkake4Yoshi (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm vehemently opposed to questioning votes pro or con at RFAs, but why does an account created yesterday get to vote? (Yeah, I know it's a discussion not a vote) Banks Irk (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA, but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account. from WP:RFA. There is likely to be discussion of basic franchise in the history of WT:RFA if you would like to hunt. Izno (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know. It was more of a rhetorical question. Banks Irk (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do feel like this oppose vote is unwarranted and the explanation for it is confusing, but I would feel uncomfortable with any elitism on RfA votes.
    Wikipedia even actively encourages everyone to vote because RfAs are shown on top of everyone's watchlist, so I assume this is a new editor who opened their watchlist, saw that, and decided to participate. Brat Forelli (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand what this oppose is trying to say. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See JPxG spam block list log. This is a clueless oppose from a throw-away account and the AGF comments above are wildly misguided. That log might show when someone is trying to add junk to articles but in this case it shows JPxG doing valid work on Signpost articles which sometimes need links to dubious websites. That is, the oppose is nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, well done, you managed to ABF and bite in the same comment. If you go a little further, you could do some borderline incivility to get a twenty-point combo! Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which were in mainspace? Clyde [trout needed] 01:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ClydeFranklin: A few of them were in mainspace (all from March 2022 or earlier) and unrelated to their work at Signpost. Nothing I find really concerning though. Renerpho (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I didn't realize the log was multiple pages long. Struck, but still don't think this is a big issue. Clyde [trout needed] 04:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The world is a scary place if this is why there's an oppose. GeraldWL 05:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be interesting to know what WP:SPI make of this account. Polyamorph (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would need to reach out to de-wiki admins as the account is primarily active there (but it's also new there). Without the tools, I don't see any obvious signs. — kashmīrī TALK 11:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't see a reason to suspect anything. Cupkake4Yoshi has every right to vote against a (so far) overwhelming majority, AND to be taken seriously. Johnuniq, and others below, have explained how this vote may be the result of a misunderstanding, but that doesn't justify assuming bad faith. It saddens me to see voters questioned and ridiculed like this, because it genuinely threatens the process. We need people to raise genuine concerns ESPECIALLY in the face of overwhelming majorities. If they turn out to be mistaken then that's great, but we must not shout them down.[end of rant] Renerpho (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why I struck my comment before you commented. Polyamorph (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The oppose may be silly, but wikipedians have a right to vote as they choose for whatever reasons they choose.Smallchief (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cupkake4Yoshi: I would like to inform you of something that could change your mind. As the Signpost coordinator, his job sometimes requires links to websites that are considered spam. This creates a spam block list log. He may have triggered it several times, but that does not mean he was trying to spam anything. In light of this information, please reconsider your oppose. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cupkake4Yoshi: Should this be down in the discussion section? I think this is a misunderstanding. JPxG was editing Signpost articles productively, the spam filter can sometimes be wrong. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    as many of you stated: my account is not that old; but I am not a sockpuppet, I am just new in the Wiki-Projects. Because I am new, I might not know everything, so instead of making up theories who made a sockpuppet account it would be a lot more usefull to explain things so I can gain more knowledge (like @QuicoleJR: and @Professor Penguino: did, thank you both). I will probably stop participating in the Wikipedia-Community, the Community has shown me that it is not a Community I want to be a part of so I will focus on other Wiki-Projects. --Cupkake4Yoshi (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope you reconsider, and apologies for my own comments (which I already struck above). It is a bit strange when users comment on matters that usually only someone with experience will be aware of, but on reflection you have that experience in wikidata, so my comment was uncalled for and I apologise unreserverdly. Polyamorph (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cupkake4Yoshi, I'm sorry you've been subject to such suspicions. Most people don't expect newer users to leap into things like RfA, so they may have gotten a little WP:BITEy or WP:ASPERSION-casting. I really do encourage you to stay. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why people would be suspicious of that; considering RFA appears on a notice if you check your watchlist. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to comment on a vote at my own RfA, but isn't 7,200 bytes of replies to a single goofy oppose enough? jp×g🗯️ 12:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like academics, Wikipedians love trivial disputes. Smallchief (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we can move this discussion to the talk page? Renerpho (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice job of badgering the oppose. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More