This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikip (talk | contribs) at 07:47, 8 September 2006 (→Thank you for your comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:47, 8 September 2006 by Ikip (talk | contribs) (→Thank you for your comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Well I told you it would be only a matter of time before an admin threatened me
Well I told you it would be only a matter of time before an admin threatened me. I will address all of your allegations on the ANI. I was done with the arbitration, the message I sent was ending it, but you couldn't let it go could you? I guess calling me a troll is being "excessively zealous" whereas my actions are bootable. Why is there one standard for yourself, and another standard for everyone else? I asked you pointed questions on the arbitration, and you called me names, alleged that I was a "buddy" of the person, brought up irrelevant edit histories, and you did not follow: WP:AGF WP:Civil WP:Consensus. Travb (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments
Thank you for your comments, I am going to archive your comments as per Talk page etiquette.
Please WP:AGF and refrain from calling me a troll. I would appreciate an apology.
In addition, you state that I meant you when I said: "season POV warrior". The talk page has no evidence of this. I included absolutly no names to avoid a ANI and anymore hard feelings, I wanted to let it go, but now because of your ANI I have been dragged back in. Although you assume that I stated you were a "season POV warrior", you have repeatedly explicity called me a troll, or used the adjective calling my actions "trolling".
"In the last 24 hours, not less than 40 comments and edits have been made to my arbcom case by you, and I think you are harassing me." How many comments have you had on the arbcom case? I notice that each section has a "Comment by others:" subsection. Do I qualify as an "other". Are only people who support you postion supposed to comment on the Arbcom? "my personal opinion" is that I have the right to comment as an "other", "that is my opinion and I am entitled to it." But unlike your lack of evidence on the Arbcom page, my personal opinion is supported by evidence: in this case wikipedia policy. "other" means that "other" people, not involved in the ArbCom are welcome to comment on the ArbCom, even if those comments do not support your position.
Now that we are scutinizing each others edits again, in regards to the "40 comments" you have probably noticed go through my edits to build your ANI case against me, that I often change my words, and rewrite my words. I never use the "show preview" button. Further:
- What is the official number of edits before an editor is harrasing another editor?
- Could your ANI be considered harassment, especially when I had clearly indicated I no longer was going to be involved in the arbcom?
- If I make 40 edits on your ArbCom in response to your 40 edits, which was the case, is this harrassment?
I am sorry, but your argument simply has no merit.
But this "40 comments" is really another side note, yet another diversion you have created from the main point:
- I have every right to comment on the ArbCom, as an "other".
"If this doesn't end, I will be forced to write up an Rfc on your actions."
- It already had, before you called your ANI.
I have made my point on your ArbCom page, and I was willing to move on. I am still willing to move on, and put this disagreement behind us, unless rootology requests my assistance.
Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)