User talk:Wikidudeman

I hope you become an administrator! Gosh you deserve to become one badly! Becuz, you know, ur name is very cool "wikidudeman", and you've got well over 19,000 valid edits and stuff. Very cool, and very impressive aswell. Cheers! Angela from the Blue (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

communes

I hope you plan to add some more content to these articles than just stating their names. DGG (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC) It just seemed to mee that you probably had some basic geographic information right at hand, and could add it. of course such stubs are sustainable even without it.DGG (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BN

I wanted to give you a heads-up that I have suggested the 'crats extend your RFA given the sticky patch it has run into. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

admin consensus

Why did you remove yourself from the admin candidacy and place yourself in Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/W? In three hours I was going to promote you to admin. Kingturtle (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In three hours I'm sure 10 or 20 more people would have changed their votes to oppose based on obvious and disgusting misinterpretation of my posts from several months ago. It's just not worth it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WDM, I honestly don't understand the problem with this round of RFA. I don't understand the changing of votes, the original opposes, and in general, what the problems are. Anyway, I hope you try again, I'll continue to support you. WLU (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting misinterpretation? That's nice. So, several very capable and hardworking editors are disgusting. Thanks. I'll pass along your comments to those "disgusting" editors such as myself. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example. I say that the editors misinterpretation of my posts are disgusting and Orangemarlin interprets it as me saying the editors themselves are disgusting. It's no wonder the RFA went the way it did. Reading comprehension does a lot of good.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be absolutely crystal clear here (language does not work well over the internet): Wikidudeman is saying that his posts were misinterpreted as disgusting statements. He is not saying that it was disgusting to misinterpret them, nor is he saying that those misinterpreting them were disgusting. Geometry guy 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Orangemarlin. You should "unwatchlist" Wikidudeman. You obviously get upset at whatever he does and says. Right or wrong, you have your opinion and he has his. So just stop watching him. Go about your business here, which is to improve Wikipedia in the best way you know how, and stop adding grief/stress to your time here. Just my $.02. Keeper | 76 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I guess you're a shrink, because you obviously have insight into my level of stress and my being upset. Thank you very much for the free clinical evaluation and advice. You are a wonderful person. I'm in tears that a fellow Wikipedian can be so thoughtful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knock of the sarcasm buddy - please. If it doesn't help, don't post it. And if it's not about Wikidudeman you can use your own talk pages, not his.... Pedro : Chat 23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happened on this RfA by chance and was eager to support when I found it. I carefully read the opposes, but they did not change my mind regarding supporting the RfA. I was more than ready to counter the oppose arguments, based on my own experience. Then I hit the edit button, and the page changed colour! Next time, I hope I will be quicker.

Wikidudeman is to be admired for working on controversial articles and attempting to steer them towards NPOV. This generates enemies among those who have a strong opinion about a particular subject, and at controversial articles, many editors have a strong opinion. An RfA needs a thick skin, and I'm sad about what has happened here. Geometry guy 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I helped to loose a fine admin from your first time round. I think this just re-affirms how wrong I was in your initial RfA and how wrong the whole process is now. I'm gutted, pissed off and generally upset (I'm trying to be mild). The only hope I have is that you do not loose faith with the work here. My sincerest and best wishes to an editor who is prepared more than almost all (including many admins and certainly including myself) to take on the difficult and conflict ridden areas. Your forced withdrawl to meet your own standards is a net loss to this project and shame on those who can't keep the bigger picture in view when commenting at RfA, again a lesson I have now learned. Pedro : Chat 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pedro. You are a very capable editor. I too !voted support, then saw the pileone from voices from the past, and looked at the diffs presented. After reading the comments, I decided to stay in your "support group." You are rare among editors that you are willing to take on heated topics, and reading your diffs from way back when, it appeared to me that you were approaching the subjects with reverence towards Wiki-policy and not reverance towards any particular POV. You appeared to use good faith, and you appeared to let things go when consensus went against you. I was saddened to see you withdraw, even more saddened to see some of your supporters jump ship over things that happened so very long ago (by wikistandards, a year is an eon.) The irony is that many people become admins because they've never been in any conflicts and have no good answer to Q3. And why don't they have conflicts? Because they avoid the very articles (murky waters) that you dive straight into. And because of you're bravery, you've been watchlisted (apparently) by a group of editors deadset against you because your POV doesn't match their POV. For shame. I was hoping that because you explicitly stated in Q3 the exact conflict that those opposers dredged up again that it would not have the effect it did. With no hard feelings towards those that opposed, I personally hope you stick around and try the RfA again if that is your wish. If you only edit and never become a janitor, you are probably better off. The "tools" are no big deal, cause more problems than they solve it seems lately, and you have proven that you can contribute in exceptional ways without them. Best of luck to you, Wikiedudeman. Happy editing, Keeper | 76 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was one hell of a 12 hours. I don't recall seeing any RfA run into the sand like that. It's a shame that the stuff about the David Irving hoo-ha only emerged at this very late stage: I believe that had it been aired earlier you might have had a good chance to put what happened (after all, 9 months ago) into some context. I'm sorry my withdrawal of support added another stone to the avalanche: I was hoping your reply would allow me to restore it but quite understandably you'd had enough by that point. I just wanted to post here to express my sympathy over what must have been, by any standards, a gruelling and unpleasant process. Very best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ONLY reason that I ever wanted to become an administrator is so that I could shave a few minutes off of the time between me spotting a vandal and that vandal being blocked as well as the time it took to get other admin tasks done such as edit requests etc. That's it. It was never a big deal to me and if so many editors want to get all worked up over my interpretation of a word from a year ago or my using a racist website to verify that a racist belief exists then it's not worth it. I'm not going to try for administrator again, ever. Simply having a few extra capabilities isn't worth all of the hassle.

At this point in time I'm essentially done working on controversial articles and fighting tooth and nail to end disputes between POV pushers, making countless enemies in the process, and in the end accomplishing nothing but a headache. Take the Homeopathy article for instance which I spent months building up to GA status from scratch with the help of only a few. It has been protected for over a month and was just recently unprotected. Edit wars WILL start back up immediately and the article will only be re-protected with no progress made and probably a lot lost. This process will continue on and off until the article is again no longer a GA (it probably isn't anymore) and the months of work that I put into it will go down the drain. This is only one example among dozens and I simply don't have the patience or time to deal with such articles or with editors who frequent them.

I'm not sure of my future on wikipedia but most likely I will simply be editing and improving only the most uncontroversial articles every now and then. I won't be fighting vandalism anymore (unless it appears on a page I'm watching), I won't watch newpages anymore, I won't be checking new usernames anymore, I won't be mediating disputes anymore and attempting to get POV pushers to work together anymore, I'll let the people who think I am not fit to become an administrator do all of that stuff. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad about the RfA

I am very sorry. I think that it was just too much to digest in a day or so. A bit more explanation and people would have been able to understand it or come to terms with it. Even an apology might have helped I think. I think you did an incredible job on homeopathy and I think you are one of the best editors on Wikipedia that we have. I realize that your knowledge and understanding of NPOV might have changed considerably in 10+ months (mine has, for sure). I am sure most people will be happy to support you the next time, but they need reassurance that you understand what is troubling to people about those diffs, and that you didn't mean anything bad by it, and would do things differently now. I am very sorry, once again.--Filll (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]