| Revision as of 04:04, 20 March 2006 editVanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs)36,325 edits →Spamming support for []← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:07, 21 March 2006 edit undoGoldToeMarionette (talk | contribs)120 edits Relocate of No Harm Comment and response from User PageNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| I only just got CheckUser access a couple of hours ago, and I'm told there's a fair bit of a learning curve in understanding how to use it, so I'm probably not a very good person to be talking to. I'm sorry I can't be of more help at the moment - you might want to approach one of the other people with CheckUser access. ] 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | I only just got CheckUser access a couple of hours ago, and I'm told there's a fair bit of a learning curve in understanding how to use it, so I'm probably not a very good person to be talking to. I'm sorry I can't be of more help at the moment - you might want to approach one of the other people with CheckUser access. ] 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==No Harm== | |||
| I don't see that anyone did you any harm by investigating and revealing who you were sockpuppeting for. Your behavior was somewhat disruptive. Please don't spam pages trying to drum up votes in the future. ] 13:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the wrong standard to apply. That is the point I am trying to make. If there is no perceived harm, or if someone does not like something should not be the standards that Admins operate by. The standard for their administrative actions should be an actual violation of Misplaced Pages ]. | |||
| :I was unable to find "somewhat disruptive" in Misplaced Pages Policy. I don't know if anyone can ] a policy that has been violated by this account. | |||
| :In terms of harm there absolutely has been some done. The mere fact that ] investigated this sockpuppet implies that Misplaced Pages Policy was violated. The action of a official of Misplaced Pages to treat as guilty, without an offense being committed, harms my reputation. The sockpuppet reveal is not the harm, the act of investigating it is. ] 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:07, 21 March 2006
Welcome
Hello, GoldToeMarionette, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 05:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Spamming support for Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Pet_peeves
Spamming afd for support is frowned upon, and viewed as suspicious when coming from a newly created user. OhNoitsJamie 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
CheckUser
I only just got CheckUser access a couple of hours ago, and I'm told there's a fair bit of a learning curve in understanding how to use it, so I'm probably not a very good person to be talking to. I'm sorry I can't be of more help at the moment - you might want to approach one of the other people with CheckUser access. Ambi 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
No Harm
I don't see that anyone did you any harm by investigating and revealing who you were sockpuppeting for. Your behavior was somewhat disruptive. Please don't spam pages trying to drum up votes in the future. Fred Bauder 13:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is the wrong standard to apply. That is the point I am trying to make. If there is no perceived harm, or if someone does not like something should not be the standards that Admins operate by. The standard for their administrative actions should be an actual violation of Misplaced Pages Policies and Guidelines.
- I was unable to find "somewhat disruptive" in Misplaced Pages Policy. I don't know if anyone can cite a policy that has been violated by this account.
- In terms of harm there absolutely has been some done. The mere fact that Jayjg investigated this sockpuppet implies that Misplaced Pages Policy was violated. The action of a official of Misplaced Pages to treat as guilty, without an offense being committed, harms my reputation. The sockpuppet reveal is not the harm, the act of investigating it is. GoldToeMarionette 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)