Jump to content

User talk:Moe Epsilon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Colour
Line 16: Line 16:


I have no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to defend such egregious behaviour. As his defender, you should be setting him straight, not harrassing me. I simply replied to his "wrong and strong" message to me. He ''shouldn't'' have gotten past RFA. That's painfully obvious. If you want to be his defender, try to get a commitment from him to stop violating policy. You know better. I really didn't expect this kind of bullshit from you. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to defend such egregious behaviour. As his defender, you should be setting him straight, not harrassing me. I simply replied to his "wrong and strong" message to me. He ''shouldn't'' have gotten past RFA. That's painfully obvious. If you want to be his defender, try to get a commitment from him to stop violating policy. You know better. I really didn't expect this kind of bullshit from you. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuettarda&diff=84142282&oldid=84120650 This] is the kind of behaviour you are defending? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 01:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


== Colour ==
== Colour ==

Revision as of 01:03, 28 October 2006

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Ideally, I would like to have any conversation continued on the page where it was started. If I have left a message on your talk page please do not reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
This page-

Drama free days
4393

RFA

Moe, It doesn't matter. I'll nominate you as a New Year gift on 2007. Stay surprised!

PS. I'd like to be more active on the community side of things after being mainly concerned with article and maintainence. What do you think is a good start, a good way to engage actively in discussions?? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 12:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mets

No, he hasn't admitted his mistake. And that's the problem. He insists that it was nothing more than an difference of opinion, and that there is no reason why he should listen to someone who is "just his equal". He has a string of egregious actions

  • His "close" of an RM in which he ignored a series of votes. While he may be within his "rights" to throw out votes, he isn't within his rights to simply pretend that opinions were not cast. He also seems to think that it's ok to insult his fellow editors with imperious remarks. He claims the issue is a "difference of opinion". If someone thinks that the difference between facts and fantasy are a "difference of opinion" then they have no right to be in a position of authority anywhere (except maybe in the Bush government).
  • His threats to Jooler were abusive. Mets was the one who was doing what the claimed Jooler was doing. His block was doubly abusive - not only was he blocking for a non-existent violation, he was also blocking an editor in the middle of a dispute. He has not apologised to Jooler, he has not acknowledged these violations, he has not indicated that he will not block in violation of policy in the future.
  • When I informed him of his mistake, he refused to correct his mistake. If someone tells you that you have made a mistaken block, and you really don't know what the policy is, you unblock and find out what the policy actually is. You don't reply petulantly, you don't say "too bad, screw you".

He is clearly unsuited to be an admin. His actions violate policy, they violate community norms. A new admin is likely to be ignorant of these things - which is why you need to find things out before you act. Irresponsible admins act first and figure things out later. It isn't good, but there are lots of people who work like that. That's still ok, if you are willing to correct your mistakes when they are pointed out to you. Mets has done nothing of the sort, and based on his latest email, to which I was responding, he has no intention of doing anything of the sort.

I have no idea why you have taken it upon yourself to defend such egregious behaviour. As his defender, you should be setting him straight, not harrassing me. I simply replied to his "wrong and strong" message to me. He shouldn't have gotten past RFA. That's painfully obvious. If you want to be his defender, try to get a commitment from him to stop violating policy. You know better. I really didn't expect this kind of bullshit from you. Guettarda 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of behaviour you are defending? Guettarda 01:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour

Nice design, but...is there any chance you could make the background slightly lighter, so that the text is readable on most screens? colr.org is a good site for colour codes. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 23:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]