Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Reid (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 15 May 2006 (deleting old). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Another opinion

The following is an excerpt from comments Encyclopedist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left on my user page -- perhaps his 43rd edit to that page, finally under his primary username. I feel it's only right that I allow the community at large to check out the substance of his complaints; having done so, for me to reply.

Pleasure knowing that you seemed to have identified me as your little menance over on your user page. And guess what? I confess. Damn right. You have come here, railing out your stupid worthless opinions and giving notices as to how great you are, while ignoring the values of seniority and actual benefits to the project. Who the fuck ARE YOU??? You are a whiny little bitch that has come here adding on their stupid bitchy little opinions, while contributing negligently to the project itself (for example, most of your contributions are in your little fucking user space!). FINE, you are ENTITLED to your stupid trivial ass opinions, so so am I. I decided that they be best aired from your crappy ass user page...

I'm truly sorry that I've offended this user so deeply. I've heard it said that a gentleman never gives unintentional offense. I did indeed feel this user was poor admin timber and I think events have borne out this opinion; but it was never more than one user's opinion. I feel TexasAndroid gives me entirely too much credit when he says A quick check shows your opposition to his RFA was a critical factor in his withdrawl of the RFA and withdrawl from the project. I don't believe my opinion is so influential; other users opposed this nominee before I did. This nominee withdrew from consideration less than 3 hours after accepting nomination; at that time support stood at 10 to 4. Had he remained he might easily have picked up sufficient support to succeed; had he been elevated I'd not have objected. Every user has an opportunity to comment on pending RfAs; none of us has the right to complain about the outcome.

If any user can point out "notices" I've given asserting my "greatness" I shall certainly strike them out. I've consistently maintained that the strength of this community lies in the number and diversity of its members. I do feel that at times we have lost focus; many of us are not here to fulfill the primary purpose of the project but rather to enjoy common resources and pursue private agendas. I suggest that we need not be quite so eager to recruit new members who do not share our core values. But I would never seek to close the community or establish any class of privileged users.

My opinions are worth as much as the next user's, no more. So long as Encyclopedist expressed his opinion on my user page, I was content. I should have preferred he had been allowed to do so freely. The existing content may be "crappy ass" but then I don't maintain it as a showpiece for other users; merely as a collection of links for my own use. It serves this function well enough from history; there's no need to remove any other user's edits from it.

The vast majority of my contribs over the last couple of weeks have been to userspace; I've been experimenting with enhancements to {{divbox}} and it seems wise to iron out all the bugs before going live with my ideas. I've put this on hold pending improvements to ParserFunctions and I will, as time allows, return to my usual rounds.

We are all different here and perhaps it's best that I make explicit what might be taken for granted. My door is open here and all users are welcome to comment. My opinions are mine alone and are worth nothing more than the standard 2¢. I tend to form these opinions carefully and am slow to change them but I am always ready to be corrected in matters of fact.

Finally, I'd like all of my fellow editors to know that my primary purpose here is to contribute to this project as best I'm able; I'm happy to help other editors in whatever way my limited skills, time, and energy permit. Please don't hesitate to ask. John Reid 05:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this whole incident only happened because you only irrationally overlook what the admin. candidate has to say, despite what he says. He had every right to question your vote, and your policy during the RfA. I actually think you are an asshole personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs)

A quick look at your talk shows you're likely a certain troublesome user hiding behind an IP. I can't imagine why; if I were you I think I'd create a sock for that kind of foolishness. On the other hand, if I'd sufficiently annoyed the community that I didn't feel comfortable editing under my right name, then I'd probably go amuse myself elsewhere. I guess we're all different.

I do absolutely agree that any nominee for adminship has the inalienable right to respond to any comment I make; he may choose to question it, demand I justify or elaborate it, take offense at its content or tone, or launch nuclear weapons at his disposal. As a civil person I may even reply to an inquiry, polite or otherwise. But I maintain it is an absolute necessity of adminship that those who hold this office not take anything personally -- even if it is meant personally. A nominee may question thoughtfully, on his RfA, my comment on his RfA; he might explain something I don't understand and sway my comment. A nominee who comes to my talk page with a comment on his pending RfA is taking the matter too personally and too seriously. For me -- not for anyone else perhaps -- this cements my belief that such a user is unsuitable for adminship. He may be a fine editor and I hope he will continue to be one. John Reid 01:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)