User talk:A man of honour

Hello, leave me a message! :)

RfA, concerns and whatnot

"Okay, to be honest with you, I am not N00b, but have been on and off when it comes to editing WP, so I do not need you to start listing policies and stuff, I know what I am doing!!" — Not to assume bad faith, but you are aware that an account that arrives at RfA in their seventh edit doesn't look too good. Maybe some more in-depth explanation on your userpage would help alleviate concerns. Have you been / are you solely an IP editor? Or do you have other registered accounts? User:Dorftrottel 15:28, February 11, 2008

Thanks for assuming good faith man!

I used dynamic IP addresses to edit, even help with FA's. The problem is that now, I have switched to AOL, and I keep getting these annoying messages telling to stop doing edits that I have not done, so I decided to open an account on WP.

I am likely to have been on WP far longer than most users, and have watched it grow over the years from 2004. It is so sad how I am being treated for voicing my opinions, see comment below from a sysop.

I am sorry I do not have flashy userpages with all kinds of wiki mark up and achievements, I just did not have time for that, and it would not matter that much if you ask me.

Cheers!

A man of honour (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thin ice

You will be blocked if you continue your disruption, if you continue to add baseless opposes to current RFAs. Regards, Rudget . 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting!!! Would not you say?

Coming here and threating me! I know you are an admin, and we have met before, but it appears that you can not tell who am I. Very well, but I just wanna say that there is no policy I am aware of that will prevent new users from voting (Support or Oppose), and I would have found it a bit unlikely to recieve this message if I voted Support.

I would urge you to reconsider your words, you are also advised to strike out the word "disruption" above.

It is a wonder that one simple comment like that can break so many policies, for example WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and most importantly one might resort to WP:DR or WP:RFC/U.

You, sir, are walking on thin ice, and might lose your admin tools if you continue this pattern of activity.

Cheers

A man of honour (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask where we've, and I quote, "met before"? Rudget . 16:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have not addressed my concerns and questions for me to answer yours <hint> dear friend </hint> A man of honour (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I can fully understand if you're reluctant to post personally identifiable things like your IP addresses on-wiki. But you may consider mailing details to some user, preferably an admin (=not me), whom you trust. Relevant information includes (more than one) articles you've worked on, as well as the range of your IP addresses. My idea is that you give someone the opportunity to evaluate what you're saying and vouch for you if and when everything seems in order. Just a suggestion however. User:Dorftrottel 17:01, February 11, 2008

I will see what I can do...Thanks! A man of honour (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't mean to be nasty, or rude or rouge, or any of those things. It's just that we sometimes get users who disrupt Wikipedia by posting baseless opinions which disrupt the flow of content or discussion. You opposed three perfectly acceptable candidates at RFA with a 4-5 time period with the same/similar opposes, and that to the community looks like disruption. I apologise if my words came across in an incorrect manner, but the situation still stands. I would urge you to take the advice of Dorftrottel above, and post details of your former identity to us and then at least we can know who we are dealing with. Regards, Rudget . 18:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Rudget, he's said that he was a dynamic IP editor; even if we wanted to, we probably couldn't track down his history. However, it seems he left you a hint above. In the meantime, I strongly suggest that we stop threatening this user. He's entitled to his standards; if he holds the bar high, I will assume, in good faith, that it is because he only wants the best users to serve as admins for the project. GlassCobra 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You perhaps did not mean anything nasty, but "You will be blocked if you continue your disruption, if you continue to add baseless opposes to current RFAs" is hard to understand any other way, do not you say?

Assume good faith, even, when dealing with these kinds of cases. An admin, or any editor for that matter, will be right 90% of the time when they encounter such situations by simply assuming bad faith, which you did above. However, you will be scarying away newbies or anger experienced users in the remaining 10%. WP will be the only loser in this type of situation, and this runs contradoctory to your mission as one of the 1500 sysop.

Dynamic IP's pose a problem indeed, a fact that seems to have been ignored by all but GlassCobra.

As for my "baseless" opposes, they are perfectably sourced and reasoned. Take for example: nousernameslef, I can hardly think of anyone with only 1000 main edits to be an, and I quote" acceptable candidate". How about Kim Dent-Brown, he has vertually no experience outside vandal fighting. Take Mind meal, who has a very miserable edit summary usage to what one might expect from an admin.

My !votes were based on something real. Points I would like an admin to have on WP, and I granted that right.

How can you say that these opposes are similar????

Finally, WP is already losing many of its fine editors (see WP:MW), and I would hate to see you scarying away the rest ( and the new ones)

Regards

A man of honour (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]