Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:39, 27 October 2009

"I myself know nothing, except just a little, enough to extract an argument from another man who is wise and to receive it fairly." Where this user currently is, the time is 12:56, Sunday 29 December 2024. 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?

AA2 and other issues

This is in response to your warning/threat left on my talk page.

Considering

• 1) I was not notified of being mentioned in the incident concerning Abbatai, which I was unaware
  
• 2) Apparently leaving me in the dark was a way and means of pushing through to this warning without giving me any opportunity to explain myself or my actions, which consisted of 1 revert!!
  
• 3) In light of the urgency in which this was undertaken, certain individuals should have checked Abbatai's edits where they would have found his post on my talk page, accusing me of "adding Anti Turkish stuffs". Which apparently doesn't violate any rules of conduct on Misplaced Pages.

Conclusion: While spouting rules and regulations of Misplaced Pages, it would be prudent to practice what one preaches. Warnings, are indications of violations of conduct with a link showing such conduct to be unproductive. Threats, on the other hand, are actions taken AFTER the fact, involving NO warning(s) of any discussion(s) or being allowed a voice in said discussion(s).

Final: I don't know what the real issue was concerning that Arbitration. However, I find the proceedings quite cryptic when you dragged my name into this over 1 revert(which was subsequently reverted by Abbatai later), and yet I was not made aware of these proceedings until your threat of October 20th. I hope any further interaction with you will be of a more positive nature. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no warning and no threat. To place a user on notice is to simply notify them that the arbitration decision concerned with the subject area they are editing includes a discretionary sanction remedy, and that they must bear that in mind when contributing. Your involvement—as brief as it was—with an incident that later involved one user having sanctioned placed upon their account does, I think, warrant what is in effect a simple notification. The red triangle warning sign that furnishes the notice template that I used in my comment on your talk page may have mislead you, so I will reiterate to ensure my point is made clear: I neither warned you, nor suggested (implicitly or otherwise) that your conduct was questionable. With that in mind, I am afraid I don't see where your complaint lies. AGK 17:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My complaint? Your actions. You dragged my name into this Arbitration on October 14th, yet felt that my notification was redundant or unnecessary until the warning/threat of October 20th! Your lack of notification implies that I somehow knew of these proceedings, which in and of itself means implying I'm a sockpuppet. So yes, I question your actions.

Odd how my 1 simple revert garnered such attention. I'd suggest next time that, out of simple courtesy, if you drag someone's name into an arbitration that you notify the individual you include. As for discussing anything with Abbatai, I'd suggest you discuss the vandalism he posted on my talk page. Since that garnered such attention, like the other 8 times my page has been vandalized, that nothing was done. As such I will not be assuming good faith with that individual in any situation.

Oh, and as for AA2, I honestly could care less, but I'm sure someone feels better seeing my name on that list. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My notification implies that you are a sock puppet? What nonsense! To repeat myself for the third occasion: to be placed on notice is not involving you at all in the arbitration proceedings to a great degree than you already were by editing the concerned subject area.

I'm sorry that you were not notified of the proceedings, but, to be quite fair to the editor who filed the complaint at AE, you were not a party to the situation. Your peripheral involvement simply attracted my attention. Perhaps some administrators would not have issued the notice, but I think most would have. I also think that, because you were involved in an incident that required administrator intervention, it was quite right that you were formally notified of the arbitration decision.

Regarding the edits to your talk page: Abbatai has just been banned from reverting without consensus for three months. I think that, in light of that, we can let earlier misbehaviour slide: something has now been done about his conduct. AGK 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your advice to Brews ohare

AGK: please explain to me why entering a discussion of guidelines and their possible uses puts me in jeopardy of having your topic ban upgraded to something a lot less pleasant. I don't understand why general discussions of this nature should have any bearing whatsoever upon my situation, which in my mind has nothing to do with it all. Further, I do not see why such general conversations constitute getting yourself into bad situations. Aren't such conversations part and parcel of WP and its evolution? These do not seem to me "bad situations", but simple discussions of what can be done to improve openness to contributions without inviting craziness. Brews ohare (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Long story short Brews, you got yourself banned for pushing views and not accepting they were in the minority. Couple that with the fact that several of the participants in WP:ESCA were also involved in the speed of light ARBCOM, and you have a recipe for trouble brewing. You want to lay low and do uncontroversial stuff (like expanding stubs or do some cleanup) for the next few months, not write or influence proposed policies that are related to your own ban.

I hope this clarifies. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I echo what Headbomb said. A user who has been topic-banned would be expected to be on his very best behaviour and to make zero trouble for himself for the duration of the sanction. Your recent contributions to the meta discussions that have been cited on your talk page and elsewhere are certainly not the most effective way of fulfilling those two expectations. My basic point is that you are doing yourself a disservice by making a point to get involved in the discussions you have been contributing to, and especially in discussions relating to the policies that are related to your topic ban.

The tl;dr version: you are exhibiting an extraordinary lack of clue, and I implore you to adjust your ways. If you don't, then fine; but don't be surprised when you land yourself in more trouble. AGK 12:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Headbomb, the participation by some involved in the Case against me suggests to you that no civil discussion can take place., right? Of course, nothing uncivil has happened so far, and during the Case against me it was not I who was uncivil, so the danger here is really that the other participants might become uncivil. That presumably would reflect upon them.

As for WP:Clue, AGK, inasmuch as there is no development of any logical argument here, the discussions of guidelines are of the nature of "What if we did this or that?" so WP:Clue seems irrelevant. As for the guidelines relating to my topic ban, I do not understand how any modification of guidelines undertaken by the WP community could be taken to have retroactive effect upon my ban. If you see some such possible implications of specific guidelines that could change the remedies against me, please point them out to me. If there are no retroactive implications, it would seem I am as free as any other editor to discuss guidelines; don't you agree? Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You're rambling, Brews. If you want to interact with me, please keep your points succinct. I suffer enough verbosity IRL to have little tolerance for it on wikipedia.
I did not say that your participation in the discussions in question was in violation of your topic ban. What I did say is that those discussions are prone to be controversial and/or heated, and are therefore likely to bring trouble your way.
Acting without clue is one of the primary reasons that a sanctioned editor finds himself in yet more hot water. Whereas you are, by making a point to involve yourself in heated conflicts, acting without clue, I would say that WP:Clue is very much relevant. Take my advice or don't. Dixi. AGK 16:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Guess I misunderstand WP:Clue: I read disputes generally are, and should be, resolved in favor of whoever has the best reasoning – not in terms of rhetoric , which seems to relate to quality of argument, not to being "clueless" about how hostility develops in WP environment. Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I used the word "clue" in the sense that it is synonymous with "common sense," rather than as a reference to the essay WP:Clue. I linked to the essay page more out of habit than as part of the reasoning for the point I was making; but I may have mislead you, or otherwise made my meaning unclear. If that was the case, then I apologise; the point I was making, if it hasn't yet been made understandable, is what I have said above—and not the contents of any essay or guideline. In short, I'm talking about just using your common sense, Brews—and not getting yourself involved in heated discussions that aren't going to help you. Regards, AGK 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Feeding the flames

I don't like the way User:Count Iblis is feeding the flames of various disputes. He seems to be encouraging bad behavior. Could you have a look at his recent contributions and let me know if you agree. I am thinking that WP:RFC/U may be in order. Jehochman 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reported both of you for incivil behavior toward me. I should have told you yesterday, but I thought that it would be better not to let anyone know, so as not to bring the whole Arbcom circus over there. I want to let others who know nothing of that case to have a look.

Feeding flames? Isn't Brews now behaving in a positive way now? Aren't it now precisely those few other editors who were excused for their problematic behavior by Arbcom, who are stirring the pot? Count Iblis (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Count: So you raised a WQA complaint without informing the subjects? Aside from being sneaky, that's downright discourteous. (Jehochman: Will respond to you shortly.) AGK 11:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)