User talk:Alphax/20050427-01
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] A certain user... (reply →)
... who doesn't need to be mentioned by name, thinks that you are abusing policy. I'm attempting to remain neutral here, but could you please not do things like revert them, when this only adds to the grievance? Hoping this can all be sorted out soon, Alphax τεχ 11:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree – that person should be named as I have no idea what you're going on about. violet/riga (t) 12:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- What reverts did you have in mind Alphax? For example, the revert by Violetriga to Grand National (mentioned by Bradley on the mailing list) was enforcing a temporary injunction by the ArbCom (during his case, the ArbCom ruled that he could only edit his own User pages and the arbitration case). You also say "if anyone dislikes what is being said, they'll have hard evidence." I presume you have seen the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate/Evidence page? What we don't need is more evidence of this user's bad behaviour. What we do need is for this user is to stop behaving badly (or, less preferably, to leave Wikipedia permanently). —— Matt Crypto 14:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, that one; regardless, it could be perceived that a conflict of interest exists. I've seen the evidence page; if anyone dislikes what I say, you'll have evidence. I'm just trying to keep myself accountable - that's part of the reason why I'm using the mailing list, not a WP page or private email. Anyway, from the latest things on the maling list, we might be getting somewhere. Alphax τεχ 14:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I wish you success with your discussions with Irate, but I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about your chances :( Regarding accountability, OK, seems I misunderstood you. (Wikipedia also has accountability because it's public and has a history function). Regarding conflict of interest, the ArbCom ruling was pretty clear: Irate cannot reasonably complain about an admin reverting him for violating an ArbCom injunction, regardless of who that admin is. Irate's April 17th spree of edits seemed to be a last minute attempt to get his edits in before the ArbCom banned him -- as they indeed did 8 hours later. — Matt Crypto 14:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, that one; regardless, it could be perceived that a conflict of interest exists. I've seen the evidence page; if anyone dislikes what I say, you'll have evidence. I'm just trying to keep myself accountable - that's part of the reason why I'm using the mailing list, not a WP page or private email. Anyway, from the latest things on the maling list, we might be getting somewhere. Alphax τεχ 14:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As Matt says he was in violation of his injunction and that was a series of reverts I did on him which were part of his ongoing argument with an anon. I agreed with the anon's edits and reinstated them – I was actually defending that (non-)user from Irate. I can't really revert anything he does now anyway – he's not going to be editing for a while! While I agree that you should try to steer clear of any users with whom you have ongoing problems with, but it was not appropriate for him to continue an edit war while banned from editing. violet/riga (t) 18:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Not a problem at all. :) violet/riga (t) 10:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
