Revision as of 17:07, 7 October 2015 editNorthamerica1000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators708,032 edits ←Created page with '{{RfA talk header}}' | Revision as of 20:13, 7 October 2015 edit undoEsquivalience (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,037 edits →Discussion on Eric Corbett's oppose: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{RfA talk header}} | {{RfA talk header}} | ||
== Discussion on Eric Corbett's oppose == | |||
'''Note:''' Per an ], {{noping2|Eric Corbett}} is not allowed to participate in actual RfA ''discussion'' (only voting), so he is unable to reply. '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''Oppose'''. I will not ask how old the candidate is, I will simply say that I believe that schoolchildren should be focusing on their schoolwork, not wasting their time as administrators here. ] ] 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:What evidence led you to the conclusion that Thine Antique Pen is in school? ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Are you this candidate's parent or guardian, Eric? If not, why would you take it upon yourself to dictate how the candidate spends his time? I am certain he does not need your help to manage his time, and adminning certainly doesn't take up more time than content writing. --'''] (]) ''' <small><small>aka Jakec</small></small> 17:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Eric can't comment further, folks, he can vote but not engage. Old story. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::That seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't voters be able to defend or clarify their position when asked? ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Don't worry about it. I'm confident the crats will ignore this "oppose", as it deserves. --] (]) 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::{{edit conflict}} Eric is banned from doing so. It's notated ] (under his prior username, Malleus Fatuorum). ] (]) 17:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Eric's comment is more likely to be an ]. But again, I'm pretty confident that no admin will dare to warn or take action against Eric. ''']''' 18:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Eric is allowed, like any other editor, to state his opinion on a candidate and you should respect his views. Frankly as a parent I make a point of getting my kids away from the computer every day for a time so they aren't socially isolated, so I see where he's coming from. Now ]. ] ] ] 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:13, 7 October 2015
This is an RfA talk page.
While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
|
Discussion on Eric Corbett's oppose
Note: Per an Arbitration decision, Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) is not allowed to participate in actual RfA discussion (only voting), so he is unable to reply. Esquivalience 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I will not ask how old the candidate is, I will simply say that I believe that schoolchildren should be focusing on their schoolwork, not wasting their time as administrators here. Eric Corbett 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- What evidence led you to the conclusion that Thine Antique Pen is in school? clpo13(talk) 17:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are you this candidate's parent or guardian, Eric? If not, why would you take it upon yourself to dictate how the candidate spends his time? I am certain he does not need your help to manage his time, and adminning certainly doesn't take up more time than content writing. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Eric can't comment further, folks, he can vote but not engage. Old story. Montanabw 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- That seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't voters be able to defend or clarify their position when asked? clpo13(talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. I'm confident the crats will ignore this "oppose", as it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Eric is banned from doing so. It's notated here (under his prior username, Malleus Fatuorum). Epic Genius (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Eric's comment is more likely to be an WP:OUTING. But again, I'm pretty confident that no admin will dare to warn or take action against Eric. Jim Carter 18:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Eric is allowed, like any other editor, to state his opinion on a candidate and you should respect his views. Frankly as a parent I make a point of getting my kids away from the computer every day for a time so they aren't socially isolated, so I see where he's coming from. Now drop it. Ritchie333 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Eric's comment is more likely to be an WP:OUTING. But again, I'm pretty confident that no admin will dare to warn or take action against Eric. Jim Carter 18:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- That seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't voters be able to defend or clarify their position when asked? clpo13(talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Eric can't comment further, folks, he can vote but not engage. Old story. Montanabw 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)