This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unomi (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 5 June 2011 (→Unomi objection to block log annotation of Mbz1: r to AGK). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:19, 5 June 2011 by Unomi (talk | contribs) (→Unomi objection to block log annotation of Mbz1: r to AGK)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Some assistance, please.
Would you be so kind as to inform editor Tugrulirmak of the restrictions of AA and AA2? Judging from his hasty move of Van Resistance to "Van Revolt", I find it hard to believe this is a "new" user, unfamiliar with policy here on Misplaced Pages. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done. AGK 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This conversation is not finished
You have done a big mistake.
I would like to appeal, and want you to provide diffs and explain why I violated anything in those diffs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I explained in my closure statement that I was sanctioning you based on the evidence presented by the filing party, User:Biosketch. Do you want me to copy over the diffs over from the AE request? One such diff that led me to decide in favour of the request for enforcement was your 17 May 2011 edit, in which you commented "This entire country is disputed", and added the associated category, to the Israel article. Such an edit is not a reasonable application of WP:BOLD or WP:BRD, and further is indicative of a battlefield mentality. In the AE discussion, you comment that "All things Biosketch brought up already been replied to above, and he is now just repeating his own unfounded and baseless accusations". You did not. Furthermore, when all the edits cited in the AE thread are considered together, the inevitable conclusion is that you are not collaborative enough or adequately mindful of our basic content policies to be a positive influence on this topic area. Other editors of this topic area are in the same position as you, and I regret that more enforcement requests are not being filed now, when we seem to finally be willing to hand out topic bans. AGK 11:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also, do not ever again come onto my talk page and demand that I "answer you when you talk to me". I have removed that particular message, and you will not re-add it. I am a volunteer, and so is every other administrator, and not one of us is obligated to give you even a second of our day more than we want to. Frankly, it disgusts me that you'd talk to a peer in that way. AGK 11:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I want you to bring all those exact diffs and I want you to explain with your own words what was wrong with all those specific edits I made.
- You have here only provided one diff and instance, the one at the Israel article. At that article I did one content edit, (not a revert) adding a category, User:Gilabarand (now indeffed) removed it without saying anything in the edit summary, the same category was then reinstated by another user. I opened discussion at the talkpage and provided reliable sources showing it was backed up and correct, several other editors supported the edit, several others did not. What part of this is not reasonable editing? What part of this is "battlefield mentality"?
- I believe that I did reply to all things Biosketch brought up, if it was something missing, why didn't you just say so and I could have replied to what you was wondering over? What did I not reply to?
- You say: "Furthermore, when all the edits cited in the AE thread are considered together, the inevitable conclusion is that you are not collaborative enough or adequately mindful of our basic content policies to be a positive influence on this topic area.", this is an easy reply that you can say to justify any action you make without really explaining your actions or what was wrong with my edits. Explain with your own words what was wrong with all those specific edits I made. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This conversation is not finished. Please reply. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I will reply, but you will allow me a few days, if you please, to draft a satisfactory response, because an explanation of regular length will, clearly, not satisfy you. Regards, AGK 20:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Really, this reaction seems to justify the sanction. This is further evidence of a battleground mentality that isn't helpful to the area, which has quite enough already. After all the sanctions, another topic ban is generous, because otherwise it'd be an outright block. Enigma 02:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wanting an explanation for a baseless topic ban does not justify a sanction and is not battlefield mentality.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I don't see evidence of a battleground mentality here. What I do see is some frustration, which is legitimate, given that this editor was topic banned for making a bold edit once, and then discussing it further, using reliable sources to support their addition. I would say that I'm shocked, but given AGK's proclivity for handing out lengthy topic-bans to editors on one side of the I/P divide for supposed violations (that are not actually violations of anything than his sensibilities), its par for the course. Nableezy, the last recipient of a topic ban from him, was indefinitely blocked by another admin, for a comment he made while graciously trying to negotiate a new deal with AGK. There is no recourse for good faith editors here, but lots of leeway for people violating their topic bans using alternate accounts (like Gilabrand) or for sockpuppets who comment in AE proceedings with whom AGK indulges in witty reparte. Where can I suggest that AGK be consider an involved admin and be barred from adjudicating AE cases related to the I/P topic area? Tiamut 06:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Open an RFC if you wish, but please stop slinging accusations around. Either put up the evidence, or drop it. Jehochman 07:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tiamut: Forgive me if I am not overly surprised by your question, given that you are extensively involved in this topic area. Anyway, I am getting rather tired of responding to this repeated accusation of impartiality. See User talk:Jd2718#Re: AGK impartiality to I/P for my full response. (Now I know why there are so few uninvolved sysops willing to dig in at AE… They all, inevitably and often quite soon, are hounded thus.)
Enigma: I agree that he has demonstrated such a mentality, but I would discount this conversation, because I have admittedly delayed my reply to him (because so many other involved users piled on to comment precisely the same thing). AGK 09:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Currently, Nableezy is blocked for his reply to you about what he sees as problematic in the topic area. You are aware of this block, and instead of defending his right to negotiate new terms with you (a process you initiated when under heavy criticism for yor topic ban of him), you are ignoring it. Where is the principle of "fairness" you have invoked in your interactions with Mbz1 and Gilabrand? Impartiality? I think not. Tiamut 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody informed me that Nableezy was blocked, and I wasn't aware until recently. Did you consider that, or do you routinely assume bad faith? AGK 19:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith on Tiamut's part, perhaps he just assumed that since you were in the process of a discussion with Nableezy on his talk page, you would be taking notice of events on that talk page. (Nableezy was blocked, as a result of his conversation with you, on 1st June, with a "Blocked indefinitely" heading almost immediately underneath the ongoing discussion between you and him; your first reference to this is, I think, your above comment on this page on 4th June). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody informed me that Nableezy was blocked, and I wasn't aware until recently. Did you consider that, or do you routinely assume bad faith? AGK 19:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Currently, Nableezy is blocked for his reply to you about what he sees as problematic in the topic area. You are aware of this block, and instead of defending his right to negotiate new terms with you (a process you initiated when under heavy criticism for yor topic ban of him), you are ignoring it. Where is the principle of "fairness" you have invoked in your interactions with Mbz1 and Gilabrand? Impartiality? I think not. Tiamut 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tiamut: Forgive me if I am not overly surprised by your question, given that you are extensively involved in this topic area. Anyway, I am getting rather tired of responding to this repeated accusation of impartiality. See User talk:Jd2718#Re: AGK impartiality to I/P for my full response. (Now I know why there are so few uninvolved sysops willing to dig in at AE… They all, inevitably and often quite soon, are hounded thus.)
- Open an RFC if you wish, but please stop slinging accusations around. Either put up the evidence, or drop it. Jehochman 07:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Silverseren objection to block log annotation of Mbz1
Header was "Question". AGK 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
What was this? Whatever it was, it doesn't seem appropriate at all. Was there some sort of consensus discussion that took place that approved this action on your part? That doesn't seem rather likely, since it comes exactly six months after the time served. Silverseren 21:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are you joking, or did you not see the discussion on my talk page (now archived) between Jehochman and I about this very topic? AGK 21:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. And Beeblebrox said in there that he mentioned for this to be done in order to show that the six months is up, so people shouldn't be bringing that up anymore. That's all and good, except that the comment, "The two preceding blocks were subsequently disputed, and have the opposition of at least this administrator." does not address this issue at all.
The two blocks were certainly not erroneous in the slightest, it's just that their time frame is up. That sort of note in the block log is extremely disingenuous.Silverseren 22:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. And Beeblebrox said in there that he mentioned for this to be done in order to show that the six months is up, so people shouldn't be bringing that up anymore. That's all and good, except that the comment, "The two preceding blocks were subsequently disputed, and have the opposition of at least this administrator." does not address this issue at all.
- My bans were placed on December 27. AGK made a correction block on December 25, which makes it to be a little bit less than 5 months (not "exactly six months") after the bans were imposed.
- I just emailed to Beeblebrox and asked him to post here the exact language he used in his response to my inquire. BTW I did not address my initial inquire to Beeblebrox. I addressed it to all oversighters. Beeblebrox was the one who responded to it.
- Then AGK could add here the exact language I used in my communication with him.
- Maybe it was me who misrepresented Beeblebrox's response in my communications with AGK. Of course I did not do it in purpose, but still, if I did misrepresent it, I should be the one to be punished for this, not AGK.
- AGK has done nothing wrong, and I wish I have never asked him to do it in the first place.
- In a meantime while we are waiting for the responses, may I please kindly ask you,Silver seren, to redact your language? Right now you have not enough information to make such accusations. Thank you for your consideration.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you can link me to an ANI or other discussion where it was decided that the blocks were incorrect, I will redact. Without such a discussion presented, there's no reason to believe the blocks weren't valid. Silverseren 23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was discussed in my user space here. AGK did not say the blocks were not valid. He only said "The two preceding blocks were subsequently disputed, and have the opposition of at least this administrator." (highlighted by me). Once again I kindly ask you to redact the language you used towards AGK.If this makes you feel better please use it against me at my talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Fine, I have done so, but I have kept the first part, as it has not been properly explained. Beeblebrox advised a note to be put into the block log, stating that the six month (or five month) time period has expired, thus you are allowed to be involved in ANI and other policy areas again. However, AGK's statement in the block log, quoted above, does not address this whatsoever, instead it is a comment that tries to say that the blocks were not valid, which has nothing to do with the time limit expiration or what Beeblebrox's reason for having the note added in the first place was. That's the issue here. Silverseren 23:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "using it against you", it has to do with incorrect log messages. Silverseren 23:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I thank you for redacting the language. I believe now we should wait until Beeblebrox will post here the exact language he used while responding my inquire.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was discussed in my user space here. AGK did not say the blocks were not valid. He only said "The two preceding blocks were subsequently disputed, and have the opposition of at least this administrator." (highlighted by me). Once again I kindly ask you to redact the language you used towards AGK.If this makes you feel better please use it against me at my talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you can link me to an ANI or other discussion where it was decided that the blocks were incorrect, I will redact. Without such a discussion presented, there's no reason to believe the blocks weren't valid. Silverseren 23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- The block log is not the place for individual administrators to register their objections to blocks. Start a community discussion, and if the blocks are found to be bad, a note can be recorded saying so. Jehochman 07:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- (This reply should be read by Silver seren too) I agree, although, as I said in our previous discussion, there is actually no Enwiki policy or precedent relating to unilateral log annotations. But as I explained, this is an unusual situation, because the block log is being used to pursue more severe enforcement sanctions than would be possible without the ostensible bad record. Those blocks had been disputed, if not widely because nobody seems to give editors like Mbz1 much attention. As a matter of simple fairness and good treatment of editors, it was my view that a simple annotation to note the blocks had been disputed might improve things. Because two editors have now indicated their objection to my action, I will not do so again without asking for wider support to do so, but I cannot see how my explanation is not valid—even if it was not the action that you would have taken. Regards, AGK 10:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
<--The contested-by-Mbz1 block by Gwen Gale was extensively discussed at the time and even got a formal review. Note the suggestion by BorisG, in response who was responding to someone's question "Do you think that editors need to be specifically forbidden from repeatedly filing vexatious reports before they are blocked for the eleventh time?" that "A ban on all AE, AN/I etc. pages may be useful." Many people there and on Mbz1's talk page expressed admiration for Mbz1's contributions and a wish that she would stay with the project but stop harassing others. Are you personally contesting the AE/ANI/etc block only, or all the blocks by Gwen Gale? betsythedevine (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- What? I have never said such a thing. I don't even know the word vexatious. I AGF and wish you correct this. Thank you. - BorisG (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies if I was unclear, Boris. I just refactored it to make it clearer it was another editor and not you who asked "Do you think that editors need to be specifically forbidden from repeatedly filing vexatious reports before they are blocked for the eleventh time?" Then you responded, quite helpfully and creatively and with a wish to protect Mbz1 from a full block by suggesting just a block on admin noticeboards, something Gwen Gale later imposed for six months but withdrew earlier at Mbz1's request. betsythedevine (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- What? I have never said such a thing. I don't even know the word vexatious. I AGF and wish you correct this. Thank you. - BorisG (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- The actions that I disagree with are those specified at User talk:Mbz1/special. In retrospect, I ought to have linked to that page in my block log annotation. I agree with the point about Mbz1 needing to stop focussing on that other person's edits, and said as much in my comments at that subpage I linked to. Regards, AGK 14:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the misunderstanding stems from an incomplete history of Mbz1's behavior and interaction patterns - taking a single event in isolation I can understand why you might have felt that some actions were ill-considered. There is a rather lengthy backstory - which I don't really have the time to recount at the moment, but you may find it valuable to reach out to LessHeard vanU or any of the myriad of admins that Mbz1 has reached out to over the time seeking support, which includes all of the admins involved in AE. In any case, citing that "there is actually no Enwiki policy or precedent relating to unilateral log annotations" as a reason to do so is, well, I think you realize that it is at least not the most obvious application of common sense. Stating that "Those blocks had been disputed, if not widely because nobody seems to give editors like Mbz1 much attention." is to completely ignore the voluminous discussions that have taken place on ANI, AE and on assorted talkpages, I absolutely agree that more people should become involved in those discussions, and I hope to see you take part in the future. Best, un☯mi 15:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Once again I am being accused in something with no differences provided.
- AGK, I am not focusing on other persons edits, just the opposite the other persons are focusing on mine edits. I am not a saint, but I am not nearly as bad as I am presented here. In the beginning of my editing I made a few mistakes, and ever since I have been wikihounded by a few users with a different POV including but not limited by Unomi who was asked by an admin to give me some space. My wikihounds are in content dispute with me, Even now, when I am topic-banned on I/P conflict they never stopped. Why have I been wikihounded much more than other editors editing in this area? Partly because I have never learned ignore the bait
- AGK, I know how tired you are of everything connected to my block log. Please forgive my post here, and please believe me at this point I do not really care what happens to me on Misplaced Pages, but I do care a lot about your opinion on me. This and only this matters a lot to me, and this is the only reason now why I am defending myself.
- The last time I "reached out to LessHeard vanU was more than a year ago! when I asked him a question about my English"
- Here is one more difference to prove my point. Two months ago I was topic banned on I/P conflict. I also believe it was an unfair action, but... for the last few days you have seen other users reactions on being topic ban. May I please ask you to take a look at mine reaction? See the difference? So next time you'll know who is safe to topic ban :-) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to be brief - as I doubt that me becoming heavily involved in this will be particularly good use of my time at this juncture - however, note that my comment was strictly about seeking out the thoughts of other admins who have followed and partaken in the various discussions over time, the only aspect of my comment that I can even remotely think could require diffs is "any of the myriad of admins that Mbz1 has reached out to over the time seeking support", but frankly this is uncontroversial. I initially thought to list the admins that I were aware of who might be able to shed more light on this for you, AGK, but indubitably I would open myself to accusations of selective memory or whatnot, my recommendation would be to either open an RfC or simply post a request on AN for admins to give you their thoughts on the matter. un☯mi 17:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is also worth noticing that betsythedevine was the main player in getting Mbz1 blocked. I am talking about the block. She has never stopped discussing Mbz1 at multiply pages ever since. Her behavior at Mbz1's talk page during Mbz1's block was well below a conduct of a good faith's user. Broccolo (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to be brief - as I doubt that me becoming heavily involved in this will be particularly good use of my time at this juncture - however, note that my comment was strictly about seeking out the thoughts of other admins who have followed and partaken in the various discussions over time, the only aspect of my comment that I can even remotely think could require diffs is "any of the myriad of admins that Mbz1 has reached out to over the time seeking support", but frankly this is uncontroversial. I initially thought to list the admins that I were aware of who might be able to shed more light on this for you, AGK, but indubitably I would open myself to accusations of selective memory or whatnot, my recommendation would be to either open an RfC or simply post a request on AN for admins to give you their thoughts on the matter. un☯mi 17:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the misunderstanding stems from an incomplete history of Mbz1's behavior and interaction patterns - taking a single event in isolation I can understand why you might have felt that some actions were ill-considered. There is a rather lengthy backstory - which I don't really have the time to recount at the moment, but you may find it valuable to reach out to LessHeard vanU or any of the myriad of admins that Mbz1 has reached out to over the time seeking support, which includes all of the admins involved in AE. In any case, citing that "there is actually no Enwiki policy or precedent relating to unilateral log annotations" as a reason to do so is, well, I think you realize that it is at least not the most obvious application of common sense. Stating that "Those blocks had been disputed, if not widely because nobody seems to give editors like Mbz1 much attention." is to completely ignore the voluminous discussions that have taken place on ANI, AE and on assorted talkpages, I absolutely agree that more people should become involved in those discussions, and I hope to see you take part in the future. Best, un☯mi 15:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
<-- How is my alleged role in a block supported by so many different admins "worth noticing"? The main player in that block was Mbz1, with supporting roles played by Gwen Gale and a bunch of uninvolved admins who spoke in favor of the block, supported Gwen Gale's actions in the review, and turned down Mbz1's requests for an unblock. I have since then interacted with Mbz1 wrt perhaps one-tenth of one percent of her edits here, most often to defend another editor she was attacking but also to try to put a stop to the practice of showcasing POV articles from our front page via DYK. I never took part in any discussion with a purpose to hurt or insult Mbz1. betsythedevine (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've been asked to weigh in again here regarding exactly what my role in all this was. I pretty much explained that in the previous discussion that has already been referenced here. I think entirely too much of a big deal is being made of this whole affair. Any admin viewing the block log will see that remark and give it whatever weight they see fit. There's no need to beat up AGK about it again and again, he has explained himself and noted that he considered this an unusual circumstance and does not plan on making a habit of it.
I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Unomi objection to block log annotation of Mbz1
Header added for usability. AGK 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I am a bit confused - having not followed[REDACTED] closely for a few months. From what I can gather this is the "previous discussion" that is being referred to by Zaphod, AGK and Jehochman. In that discussion Jehochman asks AGK to consult with the admin who imposed the blocks and open a community discussion - this seems intentionally ignored by AGK. AGK also states: "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." - could someone point me to where such action is sought? I don't see that anyone is trying to 'beat AGK up over this', certainly that is not my intention, but I do want to find out what precipitated this and frankly I don't think we are doing anyone any favors by cutting discussion short. un☯mi 21:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I wish I knew who is Zaphod. Unomi, you who are making false accusations without providing the differences demanding others to provide some to you? OK, then, here are some:
- In this edit Sandstein is saying: "Mbz1's conduct, as is apparent from the evidence, continues to be poor in this topic area despite years of topic bans and blocks, including an indefinite block" OK, let's see: here's my block log If we exclude the first block (the block was made by my request), and if we exclude the second block (the block was made by involved Malik and was lifted by him 40 minutes later) we could say that my first block was posted by Sandstein himself on February 23, 2010. Sandstein made the comment I refereed to above on April 4, 2011.If we are to exclude a disputed block made by Gwen, it will be not "years of blocks" but just a few months of blocks that were mostly posted by Sandstein himself. Now about "years of bans" If we are to exclude unfair bans added by Gwen to my block log, I had only 3 months of topic ban, posted by, guess who, Sandstein himself. Of course even if AGK would not have made this correction block, Sandstein's statement about "years of topic bans and blocks" is still incorrect. Now, in his statement Sandsein mentions an indefinite block. This block was posted by Gwen and it was unfair and unwarranted. As a result of the statement Sandstein made about me on this AE I was topic banned for a year that is not exactly fair.
- One more example. RolandR is making a false accusation: "It looks to me as though that comment by Mbz is a breach of the conditions set by when unblocking her last December: "You've agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPIs and AEs for six months, along with going to only one experienced editor or admin if you have worries about the behaviour of another editor". An administrator explains to RolandR "Tarc and RolandR, Mbz posted on my usertalk page, not ANI/AN/SPI, and thus did not violate any terms and conditions. That's why RolandR's comment on Mbz's violation is blantantly false.", and what RolandR does? Well he goes on with his ..."Regarding Mbz's comments, I can find no record of the alleged lifting of the block; all that I see is Gwen Gale's comment on the block log "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". That was dated 27 December 2010, so should not expire until 27 June. " The user makes this post with me not contributing to any of these boards at all and in spite my bans were lifted 2 months ago, and in spite the correction block added to my block log ! I am still surprised there was no admin to act on its false accusations. I believe correction block helped me to avoid adding a new record to my block log.
- I hope you got more than enough examples and are ready to let it go now. If you need continue to "beat" somebody, please come to my talk page and beat me. I would not say a single word in my defense, but please leave AGK alone. He's guilty in nothing. Please, please let's do some real work. There was enough of the wp:drama --Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
-
- 0. Which accusations of mine are you characterizing as false? Please be specific or retract the accusation.
- 0.5 Not going to touch on your characterizations of the bans as unfair or unwarranted etc. The full ANI thread with block review is here and the full archive of your talk page where you agreed to the ANI/AE/SPI/DRAMA sanctions is here.
-
- 1. I am fairly sure that Sandstein is referring to the fact that you have been here for years and have amassed blocks throughout that period, not that the sum total of blocks have spanned years, that he, in his capacity of AE patrolling admin has seen fit to give you some of those log entries is neither here nor there, if anything it means that he is intimate with your history and behavior.
- 2. You state that your bans were lifted 2 months ago, are you referring to the ANI/AE/SPI/DRAMA ban or something else? Could you link to where that restriction was lifted? Handing out barnstars and otherwise commenting to people regarding their activities on ANI/AE/SPI/DRAMA would likely fall within the restrictions imposed on you earlier. There is no 'correction block' on your log, there is a personal commentary without a link to any wider discussion.
- 9. I am not trying to 'beat' anyone, I just seek to ensure that everything is clear and in the open, otherwise everyone is going to hold vastly different appreciations of what happened in the past and thus, what is happening now, this will only be exacerbated as more time passes. I hope to engage AGK in discussion and ensure that we reach an outcome that can later be pointed to as holding community support. un☯mi 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- unomi, if you have questions to me why you keeping posting here?
- unomi, remember once and for all, when I say something I am always able to confirm it with a differences
- unomi,your conduct at this talk page is yet another demonstration of why the correction block was necessary, but it's OK you're harassing me, I used to it, but would you please stop harassing others?
- AGK, I cannot stress strong enough how sorry I am that I asked you to review my block and to make a correction in my block log. I should have known better.May I please ask you to feel free to tell me to get lost, and never post to your talk again? I hate myself for posting here, for doing this to you, I try to be helpful to you, but am I? Maybe it is a time to archive the thread?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mbz1, I am responding to your comments directed to me, please remember that you have told me to stay off your talk page - if that has since changed then I do not recall it. Thank you for the diff to where Gwen Gale lifts your ANI/AE/SPI/DRAMA ban, I could not find mention of it in the pages linked in the diffs here. You have still failed to point out where I am making false accusations, or in lieu of that redact your accusations of same. In any case, I came here to engage with AGK, I don't see how he could feel that I am harassing him, and if he did I am sure that he would be able to tell me that himself. Please stop characterizing my posts here as harassment of him, or of you for that matter, if you truly believe that I am - bring it WQA or the like. un☯mi 06:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Unomi, you are saying nothing different from the three other editors who have already brought a grievance of this nature to my talk page. That is quite enough from you. AGK 10:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mbz1, I am responding to your comments directed to me, please remember that you have told me to stay off your talk page - if that has since changed then I do not recall it. Thank you for the diff to where Gwen Gale lifts your ANI/AE/SPI/DRAMA ban, I could not find mention of it in the pages linked in the diffs here. You have still failed to point out where I am making false accusations, or in lieu of that redact your accusations of same. In any case, I came here to engage with AGK, I don't see how he could feel that I am harassing him, and if he did I am sure that he would be able to tell me that himself. Please stop characterizing my posts here as harassment of him, or of you for that matter, if you truly believe that I am - bring it WQA or the like. un☯mi 06:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
AGK, as far as I can see you have not adequately responded to the concerns raised, I was hoping that more detail would be forthcoming, let me summarize information that would be helpful and steps that I believe you should be taking:
- You state that the blocks were disputed, just to be clear - are you referring to something beyond: "Private" discussions between you and Mbz1 here.
- In shaping your decision to create the 1 second block entry, did you reach out to parties who were involved in the prior discussion? Particularly any admins on AE or users who took part in either the ANI thread or Mbz1s talkpage.
- Were you aware that Gwen Gale had lifted the AE/ANI/SPI/DRAMA ban? Did you talk with her at all?
- In light of the concerns raised regarding the manner and form of your block log entry - would you support having it revdeld and replaced by something grounded in either Gwens lifting or stemming from a discussion with wider input.
- Please note that we are *all* volunteers here, however, one of the conditions that a user employing the Admin tools volunteers to subject themselves to is WP:ADMINACCT, I would urge you to not respond to inquiries in the manner which you just did to me above. un☯mi 13:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- In citing WP:ADMINACCT, you omit or ignore the extensive discussion between Jehochman et al and I. Furthermore, above you state that you will open an RFC or ANI thread in relation to my actions, at precisely the same point as I stated that I would not be permitting you to continue recycling this argument. I cannot interpret that in any other way than as some sort of threat, and I consequently wonder why you are behaving in this way. You are giving the illusion of pursuing an urgent and unresolved grievance, when in fact this has been discussed between several other users and I, and resolved accordingly (please read Beeblebrox's comment dated 20:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC), if you have not already). I am not an administrator who abuses his tools, ever, nor one who neglects to explain his actions, but from my perspective your thinking is entirely irrational. Why are you continuing to push this? What is it that you want from me? AGK 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi AGK, I fear that we have started off on the wrong foot together here :) I will answer to your points in an appropriate manner and hope that we can lay that aspect to rest while we move forward on resolving this. Let me start by saying that I believe nothing else than that you were, and are, acting in good faith. I get the impression that you are reading entirely too much into my mention of ADMINACCT - the only reason I brought it up was to remind you that admin action is taken on the understanding that questions of them are responded to in a timely and courteous manner, I believe this was warranted in the light of your initial response to me. I don't believe that I have stated that I would open an RFC or ANI - if anything I have tried to intimate to you that you yourself should have done that, and indeed I continue to believe that you should seek such a course.
- It is a shame that you go into a discussion with the expectation of threats and hostility and I find your casting of aspersions regarding my motivations and your interpretations regarding soundness of mind very ill conceived. Perhaps we are operating with fundamentally different appreciations of the current situation, should this be the case, let me outline what I am seeing currently:
- Silverseren questions the basis and content of your block log commentary.
- Jehochman states that the block log is not the place for personal commentary and has repeatedly asked you to seek input from the blocking admin / community.
- Beeblebrox is tired of the whole thing though he doesn't find the wording ideal.
- I am questioning the process and the contents of the block log commentary.
- unomi, may I please remind you what Beeblebrox really said: "There's no need to beat up AGK about it again and again, he has explained himself and noted that he considered this an unusual circumstance and does not plan on making a habit of it. I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop.". Please let it go.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, I did read that - I understand your position, I am still waiting for responses from AGK to my questions. un☯mi 16:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- unomi, may I please remind you what Beeblebrox really said: "There's no need to beat up AGK about it again and again, he has explained himself and noted that he considered this an unusual circumstance and does not plan on making a habit of it.
- "I find your interpretations regarding soundness of mind very ill conceived" is nonsense. I said that your argument here was flawed, not that you are in an unsound mental state. Perhaps it is because you have already annoyed me, but my impression is that you probably knew that, and intentionally misconstrued my remark.
- I will address your points in order:
- My interpretation was that Jehochman was stating that, rather than unilaterally placing a note in the block log, I should have opened a formal review of the discussion. He was not asking me to do so, and I suspect that if that is what he wanted me to do, he would have phrased it as a clear request. I do not know if he did not make such a request because he accepted my explanation (I do not think so), or was for some other reason.
- I am not sure what you are saying the position of Beeblebrox is, but I have not observed him ask me to do anything, or even disagree with my action.
- I hope you appreciate my exasperation with your Socratic approach to this whole thing. Instead of methodically asking me to set out my thinking, I would prefer you to simply say what you want me to do. I refer you to the comment by Beeblebrox that is repeated by Mbz1 immediately above. AGK 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- (Procedural note) I've split the discussions here into a section for Silverseren and one for Unomi, because this is getting rather unwieldy. AGK 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I asked for information regarding the process to ensure that I was not misunderstanding or could be accused of misrepresenting the series of events - I don't know how I could have approached the issue with more care or fairness. I certainly find it a better alternative to going off half-cocked on the basis of potentially flawed inferences from information which I should reasonably suspect is incomplete.
- I can tell you that I share your exasperation with the manner in which our interaction here has played out, to my mind I asked a limited number of questions that I suspect could largely be answered in yes/no form:
- You state that the blocks were disputed, just to be clear - are you referring to something beyond: "Private" discussions between you and Mbz1 here.
- In shaping your decision to create the 1 second block entry, did you reach out to parties who were involved in the prior discussion? Particularly any admins on AE or users who took part in either the ANI thread or Mbz1s talkpage.
- Were you aware that Gwen Gale had lifted the AE/ANI/SPI/DRAMA ban? Did you talk with her at all?
- In light of the concerns raised regarding the manner and form of your block log entry - would you support having it revdeld and replaced by something grounded in either Gwens lifting or stemming from a discussion with wider input.
- If this whole thread is drawing out longer than it should then I would have to point to your reticence to answering direct questions as a factor, certainly I did not anticipate it spanning 4 days ( and counting ). Thank you for commenting on the statements by Jehochman and Beeblebrox.
- I don't see any reason to dwell on it further here but obviously I interpreted "from my perspective your thinking is entirely irrational" as precisely impugning the rationality of my thinking - that you find such an interpretation as "nonsense" is intriguing but I don't see any reason to clutter this thread further - feel free to contact me on my talk page should you wish to pursue a deeper conversation regarding rationality as you find it relates (or not) to soundness of mind.
- You asked me what I wanted you to do - as stated above, I don't feel comfortable remarking on that without knowing what you have done - which is precisely why I asked the questions above - at this point, without the benefit of your personal insight, I will assume that the answer to each of the questions is "No." - please do let me know if this is an erroneous assumption. Should it not be an erroneous assumption I would like for you to:
- Immediately revdel ( or ask someone to revdel ) your block log commentary.
- Seek public advice regarding whether the block log should be annotated and if so, what form it should take.
- Best, un☯mi 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I decline to revdelete my log entry, for the following reasons. 1) The usage of revdelete is more strictly controlled than most administrator actions are. The removal of mistaken actions is one usage that is not permissible, and could get me in a lot of bother, because this community is (rightfully) wary that revdelete could be used by a user or group of users to redact unfavourable data. It's very Orwellian. 2) I have outlined by rationale for annotating the block log here, which is that, although there was no formal review of Gwen's blocks and the subsequent restrictions, the actions are not completely uncontested, and anybody reviewing Mbz1's conduct at a later date should bear this in mind. The underlying intention was to prevent undue harassment of Mbz1, through such fora as AE. 3) I have stated that this was an irregular action, and that not only would I under normal circumstances seek a full review before annotating a block log, I would also seek a full review if these circumstances arose again. 4) The matter is otherwise settled, and I do not quite see how anything can come out of not letting things be, other than some sort of exercise of 'due process'. Regards, AGK 13:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also: A) No, I didn't speak with Gwen beforehand. In retrospect, I should have, but I think at the time it did not occur to me to do so because the action was taken many months ago. B) In deciding whether to place the annotation, no, I did not consult any other administrator. You are mistaken if you think that I was obliged to do so; 99% of administrator actions on Misplaced Pages are unilateral, because they are routine, and because administrators almost never act en banc. C) Please see wikt:thinking. Thinking means reasoning, logic, not mental state. AGK 13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your responses, I had not taken into consideration your concerns outlined in 1), I appreciate the care that you are espousing wrt to taking action yourself in that regard - I can also see that in the light of such concerns that a community approach is required. On my talkpage I will respond with my thoughts and sketch out a proposition to take to AN, feel free to partake and assist in formulating a final wording. Best, un☯mi 18:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also: A) No, I didn't speak with Gwen beforehand. In retrospect, I should have, but I think at the time it did not occur to me to do so because the action was taken many months ago. B) In deciding whether to place the annotation, no, I did not consult any other administrator. You are mistaken if you think that I was obliged to do so; 99% of administrator actions on Misplaced Pages are unilateral, because they are routine, and because administrators almost never act en banc. C) Please see wikt:thinking. Thinking means reasoning, logic, not mental state. AGK 13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I decline to revdelete my log entry, for the following reasons. 1) The usage of revdelete is more strictly controlled than most administrator actions are. The removal of mistaken actions is one usage that is not permissible, and could get me in a lot of bother, because this community is (rightfully) wary that revdelete could be used by a user or group of users to redact unfavourable data. It's very Orwellian. 2) I have outlined by rationale for annotating the block log here, which is that, although there was no formal review of Gwen's blocks and the subsequent restrictions, the actions are not completely uncontested, and anybody reviewing Mbz1's conduct at a later date should bear this in mind. The underlying intention was to prevent undue harassment of Mbz1, through such fora as AE. 3) I have stated that this was an irregular action, and that not only would I under normal circumstances seek a full review before annotating a block log, I would also seek a full review if these circumstances arose again. 4) The matter is otherwise settled, and I do not quite see how anything can come out of not letting things be, other than some sort of exercise of 'due process'. Regards, AGK 13:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I will address your points in order:
Problematic AE closure
And yet, I see some admins indicate that they are preparing to close before they do so. No rule says they have to, but many do. Some indicate what action they are considering. They don't have to. But some do. Your close of SD was absolutely by the book. No rule was broken. No procedure violated. Yet it was sudden, even rash, and by surprising editors, it became provocative. I know that you try to be even-handed; no one says different. But in the three instances I mentioned (Nableezy, Gilabrand, SD), there was some apparent tilt. Not, of course, in the results -- It is not reasonable to even compare what they were there for, except that the topic area was in common -- but for the tone. In particular I noted that you seemed quite sharp with SD, but gracious and even solicitous with Gilabrand. And it is there that I ask you to reflect - 1) are you acting abruptly in a way that increases tension? and 2) are you perhaps carrying sympathies you are unaware of that color how you act towards editors in this topic area? If the answers are no, so be it. I have shared my concerns. Jd2718 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. If I was "gracious and solicitous" with Gilabrand on the AE thread relating to her sock-puppetry, it was because we were dealing with a sensitive issue (which was the editor's IRL IP address). If I was so with Gilabrand in my administrator review of the topic area, it was because that was a general examination of some articles, rather than a specific request for enforcement, and the pace of the discussion was far slower. In any case, aren't Nableezy, Gilabrand, and SD all of the same (pro-I) faction? Precisely what sympathies am I carrying here, Jd? Anti-everybody? This is why these accusations of impartiality are rather funny: not only were they wholly expected (most uninvolved sysops get them when they're active at AE; that's why almost nobody bothers), but they're just so flawed. AGK 10:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are mistaken here, AGK. If there are factions, than Nableezy and SD could be considered to be on the "pro-P" side, and Gilabrand on the "pro-I" side of the divide. So the perception is that you have been unduly harsh towards supporters of one position, and unduly lenient to their opponents. RolandR (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- When there are two factions using Misplaced Pages as a battlefield, both are wrong. Neither has any right to complain if they get sanctioned. Jehochman 12:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who, precisely, are you saying should not have the right to comment? Sounds like a very different vision of WP. Jd2718 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- When there are two factions using Misplaced Pages as a battlefield, both are wrong. Neither has any right to complain if they get sanctioned. Jehochman 12:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are mistaken here, AGK. If there are factions, than Nableezy and SD could be considered to be on the "pro-P" side, and Gilabrand on the "pro-I" side of the divide. So the perception is that you have been unduly harsh towards supporters of one position, and unduly lenient to their opponents. RolandR (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did not realise that, because, as I have maintained, I do not consider the faction of an editor when sanctioning him or her. I have not calculatedly sanctioned mainly pro-P editors. Jd2718: How does actions of mine such as this mean that I am lenient towards Gilabrand (and thus to pro-I people)? AGK 19:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- AGK I think you deserve a barnstar for patience:). - BorisG (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- AGK, thanks for asking for clarification. I thought you were being solicitous to Gilabrand, polite in a way that drew at least my attention. You urged her to respond due to the seriousness of the charges. You seemed quite a bit more abrupt with the other two (and in those cases, closed the AE yourself. I believe someone else closed Gilabrand). I certainly do not believe that it is your intent to be anything other that evenhanded. You do not seem to have an interest in editing in I/P. So it is not your intentions I question, but the actions themselves. I chose the questions at the top of this section carefully. You ask what sympathies you are carrying. I do not know. Perhaps you are reacting to the editors' use of language, which is fairly different. Perhaps you are reacting to the nature of the charges. Nableezy and SD were reported for aggressive editing, and (I found) your response was more aggressive. There was no overtly aggressive edit ascribed to Gilabrand, but rather systematic block evasion. I don't know. I know I don't have a good answer. Jd2718 (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did you base your allegations on some kind of rough inkling that I kinda, might, sort of be impartial in some way, although you don't know how because I've not exhibited impartial behaviour? As an administrator who values his reputation as an impartial, unbiased adjudicator willing to work in some nasty topic areas, you have no idea how distracting these kind of allegations can be. The honourable thing would be to retract them, but failing that, I simply ask that we can consider this issue resolved. In any case, I have wasted quite enough time on this issue. I have ran out of patience, after almost a week of explaining myself. There is a difference between fulfilling WP:ADMINACCT and allowing others to take the mickey. AGK 13:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- BorisG: I guess with that latest comment that I no longer do ;). AGK 13:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did you base your allegations on some kind of rough inkling that I kinda, might, sort of be impartial in some way, although you don't know how because I've not exhibited impartial behaviour? As an administrator who values his reputation as an impartial, unbiased adjudicator willing to work in some nasty topic areas, you have no idea how distracting these kind of allegations can be. The honourable thing would be to retract them, but failing that, I simply ask that we can consider this issue resolved. In any case, I have wasted quite enough time on this issue. I have ran out of patience, after almost a week of explaining myself. There is a difference between fulfilling WP:ADMINACCT and allowing others to take the mickey. AGK 13:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did not realise that, because, as I have maintained, I do not consider the faction of an editor when sanctioning him or her. I have not calculatedly sanctioned mainly pro-P editors. Jd2718: How does actions of mine such as this mean that I am lenient towards Gilabrand (and thus to pro-I people)? AGK 19:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Restrictions due to Van Resistence Move
Hello AGK
I see that you have imposed restrictions upon me on the grounds that I edit without coming to a consensus in the talk pages. That is very much true. But how am I to come to a consensus when a talk section concerning the move was active and opened by me and for a month noone replied. How am I to achieve a consesnsus and actualy talk when noone else is? Funnily enough after (a month of waiting) I eddited everyone replied. Please lift these restrictions as I showed every effort to talk yet others did not. Thank you, Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have not restricted your account. I am simply informing you that you may be restricted if your behaviour is disruptive. AGK 09:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Village pump.
Sent you another email. If you get a chance, could you take a quick look (though I see you're up to your neck at the moment with AE stuff.) Steven Zhang 10:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've forwarded it to MedCom-l -- AGK 10:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers. Steven Zhang 10:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- One more email :) Steven Zhang 10:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hi,
I just wanted to clarify a point related to Armenia-Azerbaijan related article editing. Which is the appropriate board to report a disruptive editor who has no log of previous misconduct? Thanks. -- Ashot 12:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- To ask that an editor be placed "on notice", WP:AE is still, ordinarily, where you go. Regards, AGK 10:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, the reason I asked is that the first sentence in AE page states: "Enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the remedies in a closed arbitration case, or a passed temporary injunction (for open cases)." So one might think that Enforcement is not regarding the newbies who are not under previously set remedies.
- And the second question I have (following some other requests on your talk page) is why the editor was not placed on notice despite this and this notes. Was it by chance or there is some logic behind?
- BTW, I tried to do that myself but my note was reverted tagged: stop vandalising my talkpage () which seems to be a clear incivility. Thanks -- Ashot 14:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it was deliberate, but I can't really remember, because there's often a lot going on in my talk page. If I were you, I would try to post again, with a different message, on the editor's talk page. In that message, as well as including the content of the first post, I would recommend that you address the accusation that you are not acting in good faith (unless you aren't, in which case please desist). If he reverts that, then you should bring the matter to the attention of an administrator, by posting to an appropriate noticeboard. I hope this is helpful. Regards, AGK 22:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Flame free zone
Would people please stop flaming AGK. Arbitration enforcement is a difficult, thankless job. Jehochman 03:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jonathan. AGK 10:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. From a former AE Admin, KUTGW (Keep Up the Good Work)! SirFozzie (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Arbitration enforcement is a difficult, thankless job"? Well, it very much depends on who you topic ban. For example here I said "Thank you" to Sandstein for topic banning me, and asked for one more month of topic ban ;-) --Mbz1 (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. AGK is a hard worker, and especially AE is a very hard job that opens up the admins involved to abuse. We should be glad we have willing administrators like AGK to do such a tiring, thankless job. Steven Zhang 14:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you have a look
Hi AGK, you recently acted on a Report I filed here Re:Afterlife10. First off thanks for that. However almost staight away, this disruptive IP shows up and continues in the same vein. This is one of the more savoury posts from this editor.--Domer48'fenian' 12:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Up date, we now have this new editor, just after the page was protected?--Domer48'fenian' 15:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wise up Dom. Your no saint — Preceding unsigned comment added by AttackZack (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- And if a check user was done, your defence would be you are "Operating on a shared network within a company of 300'000 employees globally". hummm...--Domer48'fenian' 15:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm shocked" Tis a sock.--Domer48'fenian' 15:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
A note on Schulze
(Copied from meta, I don't know how often you check over there)
Thanks for the endorsement, AGK. You might, however, want to be aware of a detail about the Schulze method: any unranked candidate is ranked lower than every ranked candidate — this means that leaving candidates off the ballot isn't neutral like it would be on enwp ArbCom elections (which I suppose is what you expect), but actually votes against them as strongly as possible.
I'm guessing that's not your intent when you say "won't be voting". — Coren 14:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- See, this is why I hate Schulze. I should have the option to be neutral on a candidate and not have to vote on absolutely everyone. Part of why I've quit voting in board elections at all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, that's a property of all preferential voting systems rather than just Schulze. Mind you, that's one which is easily solved with a proper user interface (something which allows you to order candidates by drag and drop, for instance, would make things like this clear). — Coren 16:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. You are correct that I do not regularly check Meta (and I probably should enable watchlist e-mail notifications there). I was not aware of this aspect of the voting system. That seems a little counter-intuitive. I'll factor it into my votes, if I can, but this probably means that I'll need to vote for you. I'd rather not, because I'm biased, but I'd more so rather not disadvantage you. This tricky moral dilemma would probably be solved by me just acting like every other editor by voting for his wikifriends :P. AGK 19:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's actually a fairly interesting philosophical question in itself. Would bias in this case mean that it's unreasonable or inappropriate for you to vote, or would the fact that we have interacted sufficiently that you have formed a direct opinion of me (either way) instead mean that your vote is then more informed than many others' (and thus at least as valuable because of it)? — Coren 21:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. You are correct that I do not regularly check Meta (and I probably should enable watchlist e-mail notifications there). I was not aware of this aspect of the voting system. That seems a little counter-intuitive. I'll factor it into my votes, if I can, but this probably means that I'll need to vote for you. I'd rather not, because I'm biased, but I'd more so rather not disadvantage you. This tricky moral dilemma would probably be solved by me just acting like every other editor by voting for his wikifriends :P. AGK 19:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Vote for him, as it is not a question of neutrality, but a question of political support :) (BTW, I'd noticed the same issue at your voters guide, I'd been a bit confused, then I finally concluded that I shouldn't bother myself with something which confuses me :) ) --millosh (talk (meta:)) 21:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
Barnstar
Hi AGK, I am giving you this custom-designed Patience Barnstar for everything you have patiently endured for the last few days.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Disclosure #1 The idea of giving you barnstar for patience belongs to user:BorisG.
- Disclosure #2 The last time I gave an editor a custom-made barnstar, both barnstar and me ended up on AN/I. Let's hope this one will not follow suit ;-)--Mbz1 (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Whats the deal?
So it has now been five days since I posted this, since then you have taken part in many different kinds of conversations, but you haven't replied to the one person you topic banned for six months, so whats the deal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry. I've had to engage with some other users who were much more persistent in their demands for my attention. Thank you very much for your patience. I'll start writing up my proper response to you. Regards, AGK 13:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Notification of application
As requested on User:Crazycomputers/VandalSniper/Applications. Wasbeer 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry.
Sorry to add another thing to your already massive to do list, Anthony. I hope you can soon focus on better, real life, non wiki things :) All the best. Steven Zhang 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all :). Best, AGK 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)