Moved from Special:PermaLink/1112288436#Neutral

First neutral, ever. Oppose per FASTILY (bad nom) + support per Moneytrees (good nom) = neutral. Stop protesting!

El_C 14:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Seems peculiar that you're neutral based on the nominators and not the candidate themselves... All power to you? That Coptic Guy 14:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Based. Wow, that sig is overpowering. El_C 14:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Helpful link: WP:BILLBOARD — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Oops. Noted... That Coptic Guy 16:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Is this reading right @El C, that you are not evaluating the candidate merely his nominators? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   No comment. El_C 14:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @El C congrats on achieving the chaotic neutral vote 😅 I assume everyone else is either confused or playing along. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Per bludgeoning. ~ 🐿️ El_C (he/him • talk) 14:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I think the vote rationale (and the vote in general) is just here for the sake of humor. If so, then the joke certainly flew over my head and I guess it's a me-issue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just a tad silly. That Coptic Guy 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Interesting take, but wrong. El_C 15:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd love to be enlightened, then! That Coptic Guy 15:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sure you would, but not everything should be spoon-fed with neat little sugar cubes. El_C 15:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   LOL... alright then. Whatever makes you feel better--no skin off my nose. That Coptic Guy 15:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Dude, must you? El_C 15:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   To be more direct: could you clarify your rationale, El C? On one hand, I'm not a fan of everyone jumping on opposes/neutrals; on the other, a venue that is inevitably very stressful for at least one person (and often more than one) generally isn't the best place for gleeful ambiguity. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Not at this time, no. El_C 16:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral doesn't affect the outcome, of course, so the only point in registering one is to communicate what you think of the candidate without supporting/opposing. But here you're going out of your way to refuse to communicate anything at all. This is -- dare I say -- an uncool vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   No comment. El_C 17:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with @Rhododendrites. Seems a bit too WP:POINTy to me, even if the actual point is not clear... *shrug* –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   As a support !voter, this entire discussion strikes me as unnecessary, especially as this doesn't even affect the support percentage. El_C !voted neutral without giving an explanation and has refused to give one, but there are plenty of support !voters who gave no explanation. I think we should let this one go and enjoy the weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   The weekend is almost done, but honestly, I don't think FASTILY gives a shit what I think. El_C 18:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   It's fairly uncommon that I reply to someone at RfA. The thing is, he did provide an explanation. It just happened to be a confusing bit of insinuation, with obscurantist game-playing as follow-up. Providing no explanation would have been an improvement IMO. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   "Fairly uncommon?" I have doubts. El_C 20:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @El C: To me, as a completely unaware and not involved third party, it looks like you hold a grudge against one of the nominators... Why use this against the candidate? If the candidate was nominated just by FASTILY, would you vote agaist the candidate? Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   No, I would not oppose on that basis. I wouldn't have neutral'd, either, if support for the candidate wasn't already overwhelming at the time of my submission. And I'll also reveal now of my intention all along of switching to support at the end, regardless, because I do think the candidate is worthy.

Unlike FASTILY, I take my opposes extremely seriously. I have opposed in an RfA probably less than 5 times in total, and I don't think more than once in the post-2010s. But as the nominator from last week to the nominator of this week, maybe I can get across, even if in a roundabout way, how participants like FASTILY make RfA such a toxic ecosystem. But now when they have an uncontroversial tech nominee, I'm supposed to play pretend? No thanks. I will WP:POINT out these gross disparities, even if it brings much ire upon me. El_C 19:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So a textbook case of WP:POINT then. Understood. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, textbook, Jesus Christ. El_C 21:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fastily was an early opposer at ScottishFinnishRadish's RFA,(With the rationale of I've reviewed a number of the candidate's early edits, and it's pretty clear this isn't their first account.I would like to see ScottishFinnishRadish be more forthcoming about their past editing history; that seems like it is the likely reason for EL_C's neutral vote here. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC) {{tq}} added to make the quote more obvious, feel free to revert if you really want it to be plain text. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, Jackattack1597 (opppose diff). Using FASTILY as a prominent example, my problem is that there are essentially two facets of their recent contributions to RfA: the constructive one, such as this nomination. And the destructive one, like last week, when they cast aspersions on my nominee as a potential sock without evidence, and opposed on that basis (not that they were the only one). El_C 02:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El C, this is embarrassing. If you can't take people opposing "your" nominee, including for—shock horror!—reasons you don't agree with, in good faith, maybe don't nominate people for RfA? – Joe (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]