| Revision as of 12:39, 25 June 2011 editEraserhead1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers26,776 edits →Arbitration word counts← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:41, 25 June 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 4d) to User talk:AGK/Archive/69.Next edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| {{Collapse bottom}} | {{Collapse bottom}} | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == Ongoing case == | |||
| I understand that you are busy but this must be the first time a case has remained open beyond the term of the reported party's sanction. After all the froth and bubble at AE, Russavia has finally lodged an amendment request | |||
| as I suggested . I think after 8 days the case is well and truly stale. At this late stage any further action would be seen as punitive rather than preventative. The case is rapidly descending into a circus, with further accusations , (which I don't want to be forced into interaction by having to respond) in an apparent attempt at retaliation for me originally seeking admin assistance to prevent continued violation beyond . --] (]) 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I understand your frustration and am sorry for the continued delay. I will review the enforcement request at present, put an end to any unhelpful discussion, and then conclusively action the thread. With regards to your point that to belatedly sanction you now would be punitive, I also empathise with that point, but in answer would observe that, before low-level conduct enforcement was delegated to community administrators by the Arbitration Committee, specific instances of misconduct would often be dealt with after a delay of over one, two, and even three months; I would also contend that the busyness of the community's administrators should not result in the non-issuing of sanctions for misconduct. To be clear, I have not yet undertaken a final review of your conduct, although I have looked into the matter on a preliminary basis, and so I am not yet making any comment on the specific enforcement request; rather, I am speaking in general terms. Thank you for your ongoing patience. Best, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::In light of the explicit exemption to reporting interaction ban violations by the other party contained in ], while the block now cannot be undone, would you consider amending the result as requested . I would consider the matter closed if you did, otherwise I would have to seek ArbCom's input into the matter. Thanks for your time. --] (]) 00:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am disappointed that after admitting that the basis of your original block was wrong in light of policy contained in ] , you have found a new reason to justify your block, one which I find is also flawed. I had hoped this could have be settled and made good. I would have atleast expected you to amend the result of the AE case to reflect your new rationale before closing, as this is effectively a record for future reference and the recorded result no longer reflects this new rationale of yours and is now, in fact, misleading. --] (]) 08:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I did not intentionally neglect to update the enforcement request, and will do so later when I have a moment. Please explain how my updated reasoning reasoning is flawed. Thank you, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 10:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For some who states on their user page they "work mostly in Arbitration decision enforcement", I am astonished by your apparent poor knowledge of ]. I think it best I articulate why your new reason is flawed in a request to the Arbitration committee, which I will lodge in the next few days. --] (]) 13:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ] states that, "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)." X is you, Russavia is Y, and you undid his change in the second of the two edits that I linked to on your talk page. Regards, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == question == | |||
| Hey there AGK, they say the only stupid question is one that goes unasked ... soooo .... I noticed that several people got added to the MMN case "per arb. decision" ... is that a discussion that's held in public?, a private discussion? .. a single arb can request it? ... or none of my business? ... I was just wondering is all. ... and NOOOOO I do NOT want to be added ... lol. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 19:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : An action undertaken with the annotation "by Committee direction" or similar will always have been at the explicit instruction to the clerk by an arbitrator, usually through the private ]. It is appreciated that, because the mailing list is private, other editors cannot check that the ostensibly-authorised action is valid, but we have accepted for a few years now that that trade-off is preferable to using forms of communication that are less convenient than e-mail and the mailing list. If at any point there is reason to doubt the validity of a clerk action, an editor is welcome to ask for confirmation from the Committee. I hope this clears things up. Regards, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 20:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::TYVM. I wasn't questioning the action in the least, it's simply that I hadn't ever noticed any on-wiki discussions by the Arbs about adding editors to a case. I realize that it's often more expedient to reach a decision via an email or IRC, and I was just curious about the process. Again, thank you for your time. Cheers and Best. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 20:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Of course. And yes, it is simply for convenience; and e-mail is only ever used for co-ordination, and never for arbitrator decision-making (except, of course, outside of the context of clerking, and for private matters, on arbcom-l). Also, we never use IRC for co-ordination, because that's a ] ;). Regards, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Never at all. In fact, {{irc|wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks}} only exists for completely benign purposes <tt>;)</tt> '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| {{tlx|Talkback|Hammersoft|Notification regarding MickMacNee case}} | |||
| : Read and responded. ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 17:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| {{tlx|talkback|AgadaUrbanit|Topic-banned for 6 months|ts=20:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 20:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : Read and responded. ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 21:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 20 June 2011 == | == ''The Signpost'': 20 June 2011 == | ||
| Line 97: | Line 61: | ||
| ::Yeah, that seems to work. I'll try that. Thanks Anthony. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 14:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | ::Yeah, that seems to work. I'll try that. Thanks Anthony. <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 14:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ==June 22 Request for Mediation== | == June 22 Request for Mediation == | ||
| AGK,a few days ago, I posted a Request for Mediation at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Marshall_Strabala | AGK,a few days ago, I posted a Request for Mediation at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Marshall_Strabala | ||
| I have not heard anything as yet on this matter. Is there something else that I need to do to properly file this? Thank you. ] (]) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | I have not heard anything as yet on this matter. Is there something else that I need to do to properly file this? Thank you. ] (]) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 110: | Line 75: | ||
| ::I presume MickMacNee's evidence on his talk page, which comes to 6800 words (including titles etc.) will either be redacted or the link will be removed. -- ] <]> 12:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | ::I presume MickMacNee's evidence on his talk page, which comes to 6800 words (including titles etc.) will either be redacted or the link will be removed. -- ] <]> 12:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot == |
== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot == | ||
| ] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! | ] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! | ||
Revision as of 12:41, 25 June 2011
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- In the news: Misplaced Pages could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
- Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief
ANI
The reason I get "confrontational" is that when I ask a question or raise an issue, I keep getting weaselly responses. It's become obvious that the entire discussion is a waste of time, because no one is going to do anything. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess that's a fair point. I concur that the disussion has mostly become useless. Regards, AGK 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dissapointed
Hi AGK, I am disappointed with the message you left at my talk page, with you complying with my personal wikihound's request and taking me to AN/I yourself (I wish my wikihound did it itself), and with you presenting the issue as it was review of my block, when in reality it was not. Your presentation of the issue made me vulnerable to attacks ("Mbz is a net negative to the project") by dirty trolls.
If you presented the issue as it was review of my block, I wish you were there for me and not against me, but this is probably to much to ask for. Here's a good quote to read and to remember.
On the other hand I am happy you got out of the situation, and I am sorry about Sandstein's comment that hurt your feelings.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I've no idea what you are talking about. My remark was direct commentary on an aspect of your personal style of editing, and not a criticism of your conduct. I do not see how it could be misconstrued by others, or used against you. I was only trying to help you improve as an editor and perhaps enable you to enjoy editing the project more. AGK 10:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Anthony, I've sent you an email on a matter that I need a consult over. I realise you're busy but I'm a bit stuck and I value your opinion. If we could do a skype chat that would be ideal, please let me know. Otherwise email is OK. Thanks. Steven Zhang 10:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The best way to proceed is rather obvious to me. There is agreement that the articles must be moved, but no consensus on which of the naming schemes to go on to use.
- There is a parallel dispute at the minute with regards to endashes/hyphens, which recently was referred to ArbCom; the parties were widely split between using endashes and using hyphens, and in the end-up most agreed to side with the opposing faction just to resolve the dispute. I suspect this will end in the same way.
- My advice is that you first ask them to re-discuss the merits of the proposed naming schemes. If that is unsuccessful, which it probably will be because it already happened in the move request, then ask the parties to simply pick one set of titles - even if it is not the preferred option of everyone. I suspect that they are open enough to compromise to go for that.
- To me, the titles you proposed are sound. Every set of titles have some problems, including yours (to a limited degree, and as elucidated on the MedCab case page). But if they just pick one, everybody can move on. I hope this is helpful. Regards, AGK 14:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that seems to work. I'll try that. Thanks Anthony. Steven Zhang 14:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
June 22 Request for Mediation
AGK,a few days ago, I posted a Request for Mediation at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Marshall_Strabala I have not heard anything as yet on this matter. Is there something else that I need to do to properly file this? Thank you. Mykjoseph (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The request was not submitted in the prescribed format, and so MediationBot hadn't picked it up. I've deleted the request page, so please re-submit by following the instructions at WP:RFM#File. To avoid further delay, please ensure you follow the instructions with precision, and do not delete any extra content as that would again break the request page. If you have a problem with this second request, let me know again and I'll sort it out. Regards, AGK 17:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration word counts
Hello AGK. I cant say I follow the workings of ArbCom that much, but I do have a few of the affected admins talk pages on my watchlist and I saw that you wrote to them telling them that as their evidence was over 500 words they needed to shorten it. Where are you getting the number 500 from? As best as I can find, statements prior to the acceptance of a case are limited to 500 words, but evidence is limited to 1000 though the guide to arbitration also says that some flexibility is "tolerated". See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Evidence. nableezy - 06:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, you've added a warning to the evidence page: "Ensure your evidence contains no more than 500 words and 50 diffs; evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely." But the page previously said something different (and still does): "Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size". The implication of that is there's a request to keep it to 500 words but will be trimmed if "over-long" AND "not exceptionally easy to understand" i.e. not the same thing as "just" more than 500 words. Over long suggests, for instance, grossly longer than 500 words. My evidence, for example, is 660 words (one of the shorter ones in that case!), it's longer than 500 words but not, IMO, not "overlong". DeCausa (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I presume MickMacNee's evidence on his talk page, which comes to 6800 words (including titles etc.) will either be redacted or the link will be removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)