| Revision as of 11:39, 28 May 2011 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,276 edits →Diffs and archive links to declined requests: Hihi!← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:36, 28 May 2011 edit undoTothwolf (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,326 edits →One second blocks: Reply to AGKNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| * So, how exactly is one supposed to have bad blocks addressed? I have a good reason to be interested in this myself, as my own will show. I wrote about some of this during the ] case. The short version, I was blocked for 72 hours, (later changed to indef), by Sandstein for making a very valid statement when ] was gaming ACE to attack me. See ]. I know I should probably have ArbCom review the original case due to the documented irregularities and all of the other material which came to light later, but that still doesn't address the mess in my block log. --] (]) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC) | * So, how exactly is one supposed to have bad blocks addressed? I have a good reason to be interested in this myself, as my own will show. I wrote about some of this during the ] case. The short version, I was blocked for 72 hours, (later changed to indef), by Sandstein for making a very valid statement when ] was gaming ACE to attack me. See ]. I know I should probably have ArbCom review the original case due to the documented irregularities and all of the other material which came to light later, but that still doesn't address the mess in my block log. --] (]) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :* Tothwolf: In the first instance, contact the blocking administrator. Almost all of the sysops on Misplaced Pages are fair, reasonable individuals, and will consider a convincing argument as to why your block should be 'annulled'. Regards, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC) | :* Tothwolf: In the first instance, contact the blocking administrator. Almost all of the sysops on Misplaced Pages are fair, reasonable individuals, and will consider a convincing argument as to why your block should be 'annulled'. Regards, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::*Ordinarily I would agree with you, however I've already attempted this discussion with Sandstein. In the last email exchange with Sandstein prior to me ranting at him (which is when he changed the 72 hour block to an indef), he said (short quote only): ''"with respect to the offwiki aspects of this, I have absolutely zero interest in them, sorry. "'' and ''" I am not in a position to doubt ArbCom findings (except perhaps after hours of research for which I have no time)."'' Even though I think Sandstein and I are mostly "ok" at this point, given the email reply and the other stuff in the ] case, I don't see that it would be beneficial to bring this up again with Sandstein.<p>Combined with the two links I gave above where I made statements during the AESH case, these links should probably be sufficient to show what continued to happen: Suffice it to say, the whole experience was extremely unpleasant. --] (]) 12:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot == | == Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot == | ||
Revision as of 12:36, 28 May 2011
Hi there
Hey Anthony, it's been a long time. How have you been? I'm returning to active editing nowadays :) Steven Zhang 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Steve! I'm very glad to see that you've returned. I had actually noticed an edit by you a couple of weeks back, but weren't sure if you were returning "full-time". Are you enjoying your return? AGK 10:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've been pretty good, I now have a little month old daughter, and a new office job that gives me about 2-3hrs free time in an 8 hour day, so I have more free time to edit. That said, I've come back, and a lot has changed (seriously what did they do with all the edit buttons at the top of the edit window? I'm a bit lost in terms of what to do on wiki again. Any ideas? You remember what I used to like doing...well, it hasn't changed, but some stuff I used to do doesn't exist nowadays, or has changed. Thoughts? Steven Zhang 10:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the wean! The aimlessness you feel on Misplaced Pages is common in editors who return after many months in retirement, so I wouldn't fret. I remember that you were quite active at the Mediation Cabal, and that your mediation cases were often successful. Perhaps you could return there. You also created many articles related to 24 (TV series), so perhaps you could return to that, or become an editor or copy-editor for a WikiProject of some other interest of yours. As a matter of experience, editors thrive when they find a niche, so if you have lost yours, the problem might simply be that you haven't found another. AGK 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've been working on 24 (TV series) for the past few days, but have somewhat hit the wall in parts in terms of how to improve it from where it is to could become. In terms of MedCab, I'd love to take on a case again, but there a lack of anything to mediate at present, which is quite a shame. Any suggestions on what I could do in DR, apart from third opinions, which I have already worked on a few, but disputes are few and far between. Getting a bit stuck with stuff to do, to be honest. Just fyi, I was wondering when you'd be made chair of MedCom. It's about time. :) Steven Zhang 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- The lack of cases at MedCab is not surprising; things are quiet on the DR front generally, including at MedCab. You could always chime in at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution, as you've got experience that could lead to useful insight. And maybe, if that RFC solves some of the problems that plague our DR system, there might be plenty more cases to take on in future :). Oddly enough, I was appointed the Chair of MedCom one year and one month today :). AGK 22:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I did see that. I think I might leave my comments there, as I have noticed of late the disputes are more scattered across a larger number of pages. And personally, I felt 3O, MedCab and MedCom for content disputes worked fine. I will leave my opinion there. On another note, I've finally got my head around what I need to do around here. Having it on paper definitely helps :) Steven Zhang 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- You think this case would be too hard for me? Steven Zhang 11:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hi, I would like to draw your attention to this edit, where the author particularly says "Author Hovann Simonian does not count at all as he is an Armenian." I assume it is unacceptable to disregard the source based on ethnicity of the author. So in order to prevent any further argumentation of the sort, your comment would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Ashot 08:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you have submitted the matter to WP:AE. That is what I would have preferred you to have did in the first place, and I will defer this matter to the other administrators at the noticeboard. Regards, AGK 21:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Topic ban
Hello AGK. Earlier you said you were interested in discussing a modification to my topic ban. I am just checking to see if you have given that any further thought. nableezy - 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- (Interim reply) I will respond soon to this and to the other outstanding talk page threads and e-mails. IRL is busy today. AGK 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll comment on your talk page presently. AGK 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 May 2011
- News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news
- In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands
I have withdrawn this request for mediation. It has become clear that no amount of negotiating will be able to solve this dispute–at least, not without ArbCom involvement. – AJL 23:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Replied on the mediation talk page. AGK 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
{{you've got mail}}--Mbz1 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Replied. AGK 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
One second blocks
The user block log is not to used for making notations or recording opinions about other administrators blocks. Please refrain from doing that again, as you did here. This can get out of hand if every administrator wants to weigh in on what they think about a block. If a block was erroneous, please contact the blocking administrator and ask them to place the notation. This way the matter is clarified, rather muddied by having multiple administrators placing contradictory information into the block log. Jehochman 10:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I had a hidden part in all this. Oversight was requested on those two blocks, which I declined because log redaction can only be done in very specific circumstances. It was my idea for Mbz1 to ask AGK to make a note in the block log, as I have seen done on many occasions to correct errors. Mbz1's block log is already a mess (I made my own mistaken block of him some time ago). The problem at this point is that the "sanctions" supposedly put in place at the time of the unblocking are still being used to limit Mbz1 despite the fact that a full six months has passed since they were imposed, valid or not. It was my understanding that the notation in the log would be to clarify that there is no longer any such restriction and that it was in dispute from the beginning. How it is worded now is not exactly how I would have handled it, but I think it gets that job done adequately. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jehochman: Thank you for your message. I have delayed my response, to think over your remarks a little more, but my first opinion remains unchanged. First, I did not 'annotate' Mbz1 block log, contrary to what you say, because I simply disagreed with the preceding blocks. I did annotate because the blocks were resulting in recurrent mis-treatment of the editor. I have sanctioned Mbz1 in the past, including last week, so I am under no illusion as to his or her record of behaviour, and I did not undertake this action lightly. But I am also very aware that editors of contested topic areas tend to game the system, including by using block logs to increase the likelihood of their 'enemies' being re-banned. Second, I agree that it would be unseemly to have this kind of thing happen frequently, but I disagree that we must rely solely on the blocking administrator to do the annotation (or alternatively accept an impasse if he or she refuses), and I especially disagree that we must do so in this kind of context. Third, and probably most unimportantly, I object to the tone of your message, which gives the impression that you speak with the weight of policy and with the authority to instruct another administrator—when, in actuality, there is absolutely no precedent or policy on this matter. As a matter of experience, I know that you like to employ a direct tone—and that, I think, is one of your attractive qualities as a community member. But the controlling manner of your message was misguided, if not downright obnoxious. This is not as important as the actual matter of the annotation, but I figured I'd point it out anyway. I'd like to hear your thoughts on any or all of this.
Beeblebrox: Precisely. Thanks for chiming in. Regards to you both, AGK 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jehochman: Thank you for your message. I have delayed my response, to think over your remarks a little more, but my first opinion remains unchanged. First, I did not 'annotate' Mbz1 block log, contrary to what you say, because I simply disagreed with the preceding blocks. I did annotate because the blocks were resulting in recurrent mis-treatment of the editor. I have sanctioned Mbz1 in the past, including last week, so I am under no illusion as to his or her record of behaviour, and I did not undertake this action lightly. But I am also very aware that editors of contested topic areas tend to game the system, including by using block logs to increase the likelihood of their 'enemies' being re-banned. Second, I agree that it would be unseemly to have this kind of thing happen frequently, but I disagree that we must rely solely on the blocking administrator to do the annotation (or alternatively accept an impasse if he or she refuses), and I especially disagree that we must do so in this kind of context. Third, and probably most unimportantly, I object to the tone of your message, which gives the impression that you speak with the weight of policy and with the authority to instruct another administrator—when, in actuality, there is absolutely no precedent or policy on this matter. As a matter of experience, I know that you like to employ a direct tone—and that, I think, is one of your attractive qualities as a community member. But the controlling manner of your message was misguided, if not downright obnoxious. This is not as important as the actual matter of the annotation, but I figured I'd point it out anyway. I'd like to hear your thoughts on any or all of this.
- AGK, the block log is not the place to contest blocks or make notations about an editor. If blocks are deemed improper through a community discussion, you can make a note to correct the record, "Prior blocks were deemed improper at (link)". That would be fine. What did you was adding mud on top of mud, just making the mud deeper. Jehochman 23:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- If my block log is so muddy as Jehochman says and/or so messy as Beeblebrox says, could we please delete it altogether and start it anew :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps a pressure washer would work? ;P --Tothwolf (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- If my block log is so muddy as Jehochman says and/or so messy as Beeblebrox says, could we please delete it altogether and start it anew :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jehochman: The context here is not only that I disagree with this block. To repeat, this block log is being used against Mbz1 to have him unfairly blocked, or blocked for longer than he would without his ostensibly-bad record. I concede that it would be undesirable to have this kind of thing happen commonly. I also concede that under most circumstances, a block must be formally annulled either by the blocking administrator or by community discussion, but as a practical matter it was difficult to do so here because the incidents in question are half a year old. On balance, treating an individual with fairness takes precedence over following the procedure you think is proper. Do I not have a convincing argument, and am I simply blinded by my own opinion, or do you see at least a little where I am coming from? Regards, AGK 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, how exactly is one supposed to have bad blocks addressed? I have a good reason to be interested in this myself, as my own block log will show. I wrote about some of this during the WP:AESH case. The short version, I was blocked for 72 hours, (later changed to indef), by Sandstein for making a very valid statement when Theserialcomma was gaming ACE to attack me. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56#Tothwolf 2. I know I should probably have ArbCom review the original case due to the documented irregularities and all of the other material which came to light later, but that still doesn't address the mess in my block log. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tothwolf: In the first instance, contact the blocking administrator. Almost all of the sysops on Misplaced Pages are fair, reasonable individuals, and will consider a convincing argument as to why your block should be 'annulled'. Regards, AGK 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ordinarily I would agree with you, however I've already attempted this discussion with Sandstein. In the last email exchange with Sandstein prior to me ranting at him (which is when he changed the 72 hour block to an indef), he said (short quote only): "with respect to the offwiki aspects of this, I have absolutely zero interest in them, sorry. " and " I am not in a position to doubt ArbCom findings (except perhaps after hours of research for which I have no time)." Even though I think Sandstein and I are mostly "ok" at this point, given the email reply and the other stuff in the WP:AESH case, I don't see that it would be beneficial to bring this up again with Sandstein.
Combined with the two links I gave above where I made statements during the AESH case, these links should probably be sufficient to show what continued to happen: Suffice it to say, the whole experience was extremely unpleasant. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ordinarily I would agree with you, however I've already attempted this discussion with Sandstein. In the last email exchange with Sandstein prior to me ranting at him (which is when he changed the 72 hour block to an indef), he said (short quote only): "with respect to the offwiki aspects of this, I have absolutely zero interest in them, sorry. " and " I am not in a position to doubt ArbCom findings (except perhaps after hours of research for which I have no time)." Even though I think Sandstein and I are mostly "ok" at this point, given the email reply and the other stuff in the WP:AESH case, I don't see that it would be beneficial to bring this up again with Sandstein.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan
Dear administrator,
I am not really sure if you are in fact an administrator at AE or not, but I am posting this message anyway since I found your name among the decision-making administrators in AE cases. If it's not too much to ask, could you please review the AE case on MarshallBagramyan? The whole case is based on an imposed indefinite restriction for not labeling authors any names or dismissing them based on their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or similar general characteristic (and the report clearly said “This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions”) and violation of another topic ban earlier in 2010 when the user violated his ban twice and went unnoticed? The reported user MB has taken this report out of context by posting long blocks of replies which had already wrote last time he was reported and diverting the attention of the readers and administrator away from the subject which is an imposed ban and his violation of it. All I am asking is for administrators to take action on the violation of restriction for fair and just decision. Angel670 talk 17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to log onto AE presently, once I've done a couple of other on-wiki things. I'll take a look at the request. Regards, AGK 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Mad! Mad! Hihihi!
Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 20:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
- That's fair. I've actioned your complaint. Regards, AGK 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciate, little user! Hihi! Bishonen | talk 11:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC).
Diffs and archive links to declined requests
Thanks for the note about the excess verbiage at RFAR. I was about to refactor (as you suggested), but NW archived it as declined and the diff he left at the declined requests page shows everything that was said, so even if I could refactor, it doesn't seem needed now (I had nothing more to say anyway, so likely all I would have done is taken the diff you put on my talk page and put it on the request page so people would be able to see what had been removed from my statement). Anyway, I will try and keep any statements I make shorter in the future. Sorry about that! Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- About half an hour after I asked you and several others to reduce the length of your statements, the arbitrators directed that the request was to be closed, so I sort of wasted my time :). Anyway, don't worry about it. I know from experience that a lot of editors have trouble keeping to the word limit. Regards, AGK 11:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hihihi! FT2 wasted my sanity also! Scattered it to the winds! Bishonen | talk 11:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC).
Are you planning to comment further on the SD case at AE?
Hello AGK. At Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness you left some questions for Supreme Deliciousness to answer. He answered you on 20 May. His response may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Ae#Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness under the heading 'Reply to AGK.' Would you like to make a proposal of what to do? I do not have any strong opinion myself, but I tend to support closing without sanctions if those presenting the arguments don't have a coherent case which is easy to follow. SD's behavior may be a bit unusual, but he would not be the first person to deserve that adjective to work on I/P articles. I also left a note for Enigmaman, the other admin who left a comment in the closing section but he is not very active these days. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- AGK, I sent you a mail about an of wiki canvassing/meatpuppeting cable that have previously attempted to get me sanctioned at enforcement, I hope you have read it. I also have some further evidence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness: Replied. EdJohnston: I forgot that I had asked SD some questions. I will go look at his answers, then post a follow-up. Thanks for the reminder; I've been busy IRL. Regards, AGK 11:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- AGK, I sent you reply, also would like opportunity to reply to your follow up. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness: Replied. EdJohnston: I forgot that I had asked SD some questions. I will go look at his answers, then post a follow-up. Thanks for the reminder; I've been busy IRL. Regards, AGK 11:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
SD email "evidences"
Hi AGK, it is to let you know that I have good reasons to believe that SD is talking about private emails hacked from my email account in December.
Some of these emails were written by the hacker.Some of them were written by me in order to make the hacker to act on them because I knew my account was hacked at the very moment it was hacked, and Avi could confirm my words because I emailed him about the hacker, and he blocked that IP on wikipedia.
The other user user:Sol Goldstone is community banned for outing me with those stolen emails, and trying present them as "evidences".
What SD is doing now is also outing because I assume the "evidences" were sent to a few admins.Sending "the evidences" via email is even worse, because I cannot defend myself, and I have done nothing wrong.
PhilKnight said he was not going to consider evidence obtained by hacking.
My email was has hacked another time about two months ago. I emailed Alison about this, she blocked the hacker IP.
AGK, if SD has "evidences" and "further evidence" it means that somebody's else email was also hacked (mine was not) because it is the only way to get such "evidences", of course, if these "evidences" are verifiable at all,and I believe that, if the hacker cannot be caught, the users who are acting on the hacker behalf should be sanctioned. It is the only way to stop dirty business of hacking emails and presenting them as "evidences". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- An administrator is not qualified to consider serious accusations of this nature. Please take this to the Arbitration Committee, to whom the community defers all matters of a confidential nature. AGK 11:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)