Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MegamanZero 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Regarding the quote on my page

Users have expressed concern regarding the quote proceeding the top of my talkpage. To clarify, I placed it there in regards to its desiveness, something I didn't quite expect to see. While I do endorse the meaning of it to a degree, I do not support it. It is simply something I find interesting, and a representation of how different aspects of the community act on issues. I am not bold enough to ever fully endorse the meaning of IAR. -Zero^Talk 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion carried over from voting space

Notwithstanding our shared hatred for trolls, "fuck" is, as often the case, unduly inflammatory, don't you think? Xoloz 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But I don't demand admins be perfect. I am a realist. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I expect more out of you than the rest of the arbcom, so i'd like an apology for your comment, especially since I didn't since the first part of that quote is enough to know that he doesn't know enough yet to be an admin...Trolls regularly break WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:EW, WP:3RR and multiple other ones -- it's their nature, they don't care about the encyclopedia, they care about winning arguments with people. Anyone who uses WP:IAR as anything less than a last resort creates just as many problems as the troll because if you don't have moral authority, they'll just come back with a sockpuppet and you block them again and they come back and the cycle continues until we're focusing just on them rather than the encyclopedia. There are around 800 admins, many of whom are burnt out.There are 3,000 new users every day, a number that is going to increase. If the trolls ever got even the tiniest bit of realization towards and we continued to act like a bunch of children instead of just making some rules to guide us, then I hope you'll enjoy the next dozen Liebenthalers/Userboxen/Editcountis Crises, because they'll become more frequent, more complex, and larger... Karmafist 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite know why I'm being asked to apologise. I was only saying that, when process means that time-wasting trolls wouldn't be blocked, process should then be ignored. IAR is used when process doesn't make sense to be applied. I certainly apologise if you were offended, but that was most certainly not my intent. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

For the misinterpretation of my reasoning for opposing, sorry for not making that clear. Sam, you're a good person, and I know you have good intent in what you're saying, but ultimately the war on trolls can't be won unless we have moral authority, and we're not going to get that if our reasoning is "I don't like you, I percieve you to be wasting my time, I think i'll block you". Let's fix our policies if they're so out of touch with our problems instead of just throwing them away and beginning an endless tit for tat betweeen admins and troll socks. Karmafist 19:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about when it's completely, blindingly, bleedingly obvious that someone is a troll. If you really want to attempt an RfAr in those circumstances (as strict observance of policy arguably demands), be my guest. I guarantee the Committee will throw it back, saying "deal with this yourself". I don't see a war on trolls. On the other hand, what is best for the troll: quick blocking, or a long debate with a chance to rail against Wikipedia's unfairness and bias? I'll leave that one for the floor. "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life" Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe Karmafist and another few editors have taken this farther than I had ever even given the quote itself credit. I too, can see how it can be percieved as immature or perhaps imflamatory, but I assure everyone that I merely made its addition to my talkpage with its underlying meaning intact. Please assume good faith. I follow policy on wikipedia as rilgiously as possible and always do what I think is best for the project. I am confused as to why people think different to this goal, and merely request that people ask my intention beforehand rather than make needlessly negative assumptions in my motives. It is for this reason I removed it, as people are offended by a meaning I did percieve it as.

There also appears to be an misinterpretation over my past demeanor. I am baffled by this, and am speculating as to why, if it warrents a srong oppostion, why did editors not choose to discuss it with me on my talkpage at the time..? I would've have been quite estatic to put their concerns at rest, as I dislike having others feel uncomfortable about me. I looking and taking everyone's viewpoints of my behavior into effect, and if I have garnered offense, I certainly did not mean to. In the situational diffs provided, I am trying my best to see where I have been malicious as others say, and all I can see is a creative situation involving the chabging of the sig, and siutions where I disagreed with another editor. I apologize for rambling, but I would be very interested in having people explain such comments as General incivility and process is very important and ignoring rules is what causes most problems and inflaming situations and demonstrate an ability to persuade others while compounding with immaturity, as the diffs provided don't depict that my behavior was in any such way at the time. Perhaps I'm missing something; hopefully these people who have had little interaction with me can asist me in understanding their analyses which only scratch the surface of my previous persona. -Zero^Talk 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)