User talk:Kingpin13
|
|
Please:
Good show
Thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page. :) -t'shaelchat 07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
CSD Template
Sorry about that, I totally forgot it would notify sysops! Harlem675 09:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Removal of warnings
Hi Kingpin. What should I do when an IP-user removes a warning just after I gave it to him? I tried to rollback his edit, but just after that he undo my edit. Shouldn't the warnings stay on his talk page so that one could see in the future if he does something wrong again? Thanks. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like the vandal messed with J.delanoy. I think his time is counted! LouriePieterse 16:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
it was not me
It was someone else. I just fixed the fromatting. Could not bring myself to undo it. Could not leave the formatting broken. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Another Kingpin?
Hi, it may have been a coincidence, but I issued a couple of warnings earlier today to "User:Kingpin2013". An imposter? Needless to say I am keeping a close eye on them. Thought I'd give you a heads up. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Peter Damian
Ah, I was expecting someone would contact me soon about this. I provided, in my edit, a very brief summary of why I struck his vote, but I will elaborate.
Part of the job we do, as crats, is to analyze the rationales behind opposes and neutrals to see where consensus lies. We do give different weight to different rationales, and in a practical sense, the only difference between giving a vote no weight and physically striking a vote is striking the vote. This is possible because RFA is a discussion, where the real power of someone's oppose lies not in their physical vote but in the reasoning behind it.
I admit, I was apprehensive to strike the vote. I could close the RFA and give it no weight without striking. I could support myself and negate the oppose. I could ignore it and let the discussion boil over and past until he grew tired of it. But I didn't. I knew I might find criticism, but I can't in good conscience let him disrespect Mikaey in such a way.
When a person submits themselves to RFA, they deserve to be seen in the light of their contributions. They deserve to receive constructive criticism. They deserve to see what they have done right and what they need to work on. So when someone opposes with a reason that fails to give to the candidates the respect and the aforementioned rights that they deserve, how can we let that stand? We are an encyclopedia based off mutual respect and civility for each other. To what degree our mutual respect and civility as a community still stands is debatable, but this is the hope we look to build towards.
That said, I don't have a vendetta against Peter Damian. I wish him well, and I hope he continues to build content. If he even put so much as a reasonable rationale to show why Mikaey might not be a good admin, I would not have stricken the vote. But his wording, the internal message of his oppose, and the fact that he is basically getting away with it, I find to be astounding. As a bureaucrat, I feel it is a duty of mine to make sure that RFA is a place where the candidate can learn about themselves through the constructive criticism of others and that both sides may be civil and respectful when doing this. I had no choice but to be bold, and to do my duty, albeit in a more openly symbolic fashion that we are accustomed to doing. bibliomaniac15 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- We'll see how the discussion about the whole incident goes. On my part, I am not willing to put up with this divisive behavior much longer. I feel that the more drama is placed on this, the further he gets towards his goal. The way to combat this is with a good dose of BOLD and IAR. bibliomaniac15 22:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind if I send a link over here. I don't want to type out my reasoning more than once. bibliomaniac15 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)