Matthew Richardson
Hello, here you can send messages to me.
Your sole criterion
editDrop it. If you continue opposing based on such a one-dimensional thing as the number of Category talk: edits, you will be blocked. —[[Animum | talk]] 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- What, so I may not have my opinion? Some oppose for a lack of edits to counter-vandalism areas, some oppose for a lack of contributions to deletion discussions, I oppose for a lack of Category Talk edits. You may disagree with that, yes, but you must respect my opinion, and a block would be way out of proportion. Matthew Richardson 18:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Animum here, there is no percise edit count here. There is more variety to passing RfA, but please quit this. Seeing as you just created this account, I'm going to give you a benefit of doubt. Continuing this behavior will get you block.--PrestonH 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- So you block people for disagreeing with them? Blocks are meant to prevent harm to the project. I do not harm the project in any way by voicing my opinion. Seeing as the candidates I opposed have many more "support" votes than "oppose" votes, I find it highly unlikely that their nominations will fail. Could you tell me why you think I am actively harming the encyclopedia? Matthew Richardson 19:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you oppose based on a lack of Category talk edits, you may rob the site of a sysop that will be needed in the future, not to mention disrupt the RfA process. If I were you, I'd take my advice, read a few policies, and not assume that wikipedia has the same social infrastructure of Conservapedia: It doesn't. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. So to all the people who say, "he hasn't written a featured article, so he cannot be a good admin", you say "YOU ARE DISRUPTING THE RFA PROCESS AND ROBBING THE SITE OF SYSOPS SO I'LL BLOCK YOU!!!"? Matthew Richardson 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and are there actually any policies that relate to the average criteria for adminship? People keep saying that my criteria are way too high, but I haven't read any actual page that tells which criteria are acceptable. Matthew Richardson 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I heard that people who try to contribute to this site's content are constantly engaged in edit wars and cannot live in peace (as opposed to Conservapedia, where edit wars are virtually nonexistent), so I decided to limit my article contributions to small formatting fixes. Matthew Richardson 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Best not get into trouble with Animum Matthew, just move on.--PrestonH 19:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is what I ask of him, that he leave me alone, but instead he chooses to repost unconstructive comments onto this page and to let the situation escalate. Matthew Richardson 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unconstructive? My comments? Well, if you say so… —[[Animum | talk]] 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- What else do you want to attain by saying that I am a "troll"? Matthew Richardson 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. If my opinion isn't wanted, then I'm out. I continue to say that I find it deeply inappropriate that you choose to threaten me with blocks and to censor my opinion just because you disagree with me. Matthew Richardson 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Admin Jaranda
editMy account is not only used for "RFA trolling". I am allowed to express my opinion, you may disagree with it, but not censor it. I made various contributions to articles as well, by the way, as evident from my contribution logs. Matthew Richardson 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Matthew Richardson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Could you please lift my block and let me move on to other things? I am getting no response here, and do not wish to waste any more of my time on voicing my opinion in adminship discussions when it isn't wanted.
Decline reason:
Since you've indicated a desire to stop your disruption, I was generally feeling inclined to grant this request (or at least discuss the matter with Jaranda), pending a look at the contributions you mentioned. Then I took a look at those contributions, and I see you only just joined today. If you had a history of helpful contributions, things might be different -- I count three or four copyedits, weighed against a nearly instant rush to disruption. This isn't a final "no," but it is a no for now, until you can wait a bit longer, describe helpful changes you might make to Wikipedia, or otherwise demonstrate some sort of commitment. That may not be the most polite thing I could do, but something does smell fishy here, I'm afraid. Apologies for any inconvenience. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Um Matthew, I'm just curious how you happened upon Espresso Addict's RfA on your third edit (the other two edits being creation of your userpage and your RfA sub-page)? And how do you know so much about policy? Have you edited Wikipedia with other accounts? Thanks, Sarah 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Luna Santin and Sarah. By your second edit to Wikipedia, you formulated an RfA criteria? If you had a history of helpful contributions to Wikipedia with other accounts, things might be different. You mention that you are active at Conservapedia, under a different name. A review of your edits at Conservapedia might help get this account restored. If you think it would help, please post your user name at Conservapedia or, if you had other user names at Wikipedia, please post those. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)