| Revision as of 00:55, 15 January 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:AGK/Archive/78) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:11, 15 January 2014 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits →False accusations: r NeotarfNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| Regards, —] (]) 09:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | Regards, —] (]) 09:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| : During this review, you have repeatedly misrepresented facts relating to historical warnings and to DS in general. Arguing by example, which you claim to be doing, is fine. Arguing through examples that have had crucial details corrupted smacks of editing with an agenda and is fundamentally disruptive. If you cannot see why this is, and continue to labour under the delusion that 'mud is being slung at you', then I do not think I am obliged to continue correcting your misstatements. All of this will be apparent to any uninvolved administrator who cares to review your contributions since summer last year and the narrow focus evident in them. At the beginning of the DS review, in my mind everyone and anyone was welcome to participate. Imagine my horror, then, to have watched you systematically derail it. I'm afraid this cannot be allowed for much longer; the review cannot be your soapbox. Your participation so far - I'm very sorry to have to say - has been shockingly self-interested in motivation and immoral in execution. If you do not drastically change how you participate in this review, I shall formally exclude you from it. ] ]] 12:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Question regarding ArbCom proposed decision == | == Question regarding ArbCom proposed decision == | ||
Revision as of 12:11, 15 January 2014
|
"I myself know nothing, except just a little, enough to extract an argument from another man who is wise and to receive it fairly."
This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight". |
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
Help needed
Hi, I just logged in an incident on ANI. Check this . I feel that the action by the admin in discussion was harsh, sudden and one sided. Whilst I wait for the discussion on ANI to progress, I am placing a request to you if you can review this independently and give me your feedback. Cheers AKS
DS review
I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views. Roger Davies 19:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
False accusations
This edit is a bit awkward, do you think? It was bad enough to be accused falsely the first time, but this repeats the accusation, and along with it the injury that was perpetuated the first time, and with no indication that the accusation was false, or that it has even been disputed. It also accuses me of "misremembering", although it is clear enough to anyone who follows the diffs that the phrase "using AE as a soapbox" never appeared at all. And this on a page that gets more than 100 pageviews a day.
I also fail to see how discussion of specific examples of how discretionary sanctions actually work could be considered "derailment". It has been very clear in the discussion so far that the Committee has no idea how sanctions are working. But how many of the thousand editors who left the project in the last year have been willing to engage in dialogue about it? I consider myself to be something of a canary in the mine, a new user who didn't make it through that first critical year, even though, it is true enough there were much more experienced and valuable editors than myself who left as a result of the same incident. I don't view this situation as a either a one-off or as something that can be blamed on one individual. I see it as a systemic issue, one that should be solved by looking for systemic solutions. Attempting to muzzle editors who have had negative experiences will not solve any problems.
I suppose I could cite other editors' experiences as examples, instead of my own, but judging by the amount of mud that's been thrown at me on the talk page so far, I'm not sure how fair that would be.
Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- During this review, you have repeatedly misrepresented facts relating to historical warnings and to DS in general. Arguing by example, which you claim to be doing, is fine. Arguing through examples that have had crucial details corrupted smacks of editing with an agenda and is fundamentally disruptive. If you cannot see why this is, and continue to labour under the delusion that 'mud is being slung at you', then I do not think I am obliged to continue correcting your misstatements. All of this will be apparent to any uninvolved administrator who cares to review your contributions since summer last year and the narrow focus evident in them. At the beginning of the DS review, in my mind everyone and anyone was welcome to participate. Imagine my horror, then, to have watched you systematically derail it. I'm afraid this cannot be allowed for much longer; the review cannot be your soapbox. Your participation so far - I'm very sorry to have to say - has been shockingly self-interested in motivation and immoral in execution. If you do not drastically change how you participate in this review, I shall formally exclude you from it. AGK 12:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Question regarding ArbCom proposed decision
May I ask a question regarding your vote on a specific remedy of the Kafziel case? If it is not appropriate here, I'm willing to ask at the PD talk page. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)