User talk:Bibliomaniac15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
|
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2
Hello Bibliomaniac15. Firstly, I'd like to say that I've avoided (until now) all Peter Damian-related issues, but don't agree with him getting to !vote or with his intent. But indenting other user's !votes without providing any reason should not be done, I know it's annoying, but his votes count for absolutely naught. Because they are votes, and RfA is a discussion. The candidate is ignoring it, I'd hope that !voters would follow the example of the user they hope will become an admin :D. Remember: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Please reconsider your strike. That said, I'm definitely not going to edit war over this, or even remove your strike in the first place. Hopefully we can all just ignore Peter's comments (which the exception of the 'crats). Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree the vote is completely off, and shouldn't be there, but that doesn't mean I think users other than Peter should remove it (it makes it look like he himself has struck it). I just disagree with everybody talking about this at ~3 different places, each one getting so big that no sense can be made of it, and then ignoring it and individual users start reverting each other, blocking, unblocking etc. Sure, if you want to show that his vote has been disregarded before the RfA is closed then okay, same result. But more aggravating for Peter. I can see what you're saying about it being unfair for Mikaey, but he (should be able to and) seems to be fine. I really don't mind if the !vote is struck, but don't think that was the best way of doing it. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Have you seen...
...a newish essay around here called WP:TYFYV - Wikipedia:Thank you for your vote? I wrote it recently, on the heels of the DougsTech affair. I wonder if anything in there might be applicable to the Peter Damian situation. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. You clearly know more than I about the particulars of this situation, so I defer to your judgment. I only hope that the argument:
- "If, in a perfect Wikipedian society, we would all thank him for his oppose and choke him off. But seeing as the community has much division on this point, and probably wouldn't humble themselves to do so, I feel that the only way to end this is to be firm against the oppose in question."
- ...will not be applied uniformly to such cases. Doing so would seem to rob the community of an opportunity to improve our handling of this kind of situation. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Your striking of Peter Damian's oppose was reverted
Thought you might want to know. NW (Talk) 16:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- This BN thread too. NW (Talk) 20:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
