Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/AaronS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Voting

Isn't that a little unethical? You should be voting on the whether you think Aaron would make a good administrator. Instead, you're voting based on me. That in itself tells me you don't have what it takes to be an objective administrator. RJII 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, in reality I am voting Neutral for the reasons I have described below. What my vote is doing is making sure your vote is neutralised. How is that unobjective? It's called strategic voting, I don't particularly believe that AaronS should be an administrator one way or the other (see my Neutral vote), I am voting strategically to make sure your politically and personally motivated vote is neutralised. I fail to see how that is not objective. If you'd like to point to specific examples where I have abused my administrator privileges I would be very pleased in order to improve my standing as an impartial administrator. - FrancisTyers 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong to assume my vote is politically motivated. It's not. It's a matter of Aaron being an unreasonable Wikipedia editor. If you want to go through the anarchism archive, you can see him asking for sources then when they're presented he says things like "one isn't enough." Then when you provide 3 or 4, he still dismisses them for bizarre reasons (I'm still working on locating these). He also accused me of being dishonest (i gave a source for that). He's not reasonable. Also, he voted in support of infinity for his nominaton to be an administrator. The overhelming majority voted against him. His behavior was attrocious, yet Aaron supported him. [Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0] That shows bad judgement as well. You're just assuming that my objections are politically based. And, you're wrong to vote to counter my vote. You should be voting on the merits of the evidence I and others have presented. RJII 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You've based your vote against him on one article (or is it two articles), an article that you were very involved in and one that you were eventually banned from editing. If you had decided to base your vote on all the articles he has worked on except the ones that you were involved in would you decide the same way, and why? - FrancisTyers 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not because his behavior and judgement is egregious enough in the articles that I know he's been involved with. I don't know of his activity on other articles or if he's even involved in other articles, so I couldn't comment on that. I sincerely think he's an unreasonable Wikipedian. There are lots of people who I have disagreements with, but they'll accept sources if I provide them and they don't accuse me of being "dishonest." And, it's not just me whose sources he's dismissed. (My two week banning from editing anarchism was the result of an arbitration request filed by infinity. It's hard to get stuff in the articles because these two guys block you every step of the way by any way possible, even if it takes filing arbitration cases and scouring for anything that may be construed as a personal attack to get the person banned.) The fact that he voted in support of Infinity to be an administrator is a GLARING illustration of his bad judgement. Aside from that, I may not be able to convince you that he wants to become an administrator in order to use force unreasonable over others, but I'm convinced that he is. And, I'm convinced that's why he voted for infinity --to help prevent me from getting information into articles. Those two are my main antagonists, and I'm convinced that I am a major reason they want to become administrators. They want to become administrators as just another tool to prevent others from editing articles and presenting a more accurate presentation of reality. RJII 21:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)