| Revision as of 12:09, 2 June 2011 editAshot Arzumanyan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,362 edits →Question: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:13, 2 June 2011 edit undoBetsythedevine (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,287 edits →Question: More about one of the possibly contested blocks and questionNext edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| * 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:03, 2 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 10:18, 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, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 10:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| <--The contested-by-Mbz1 block by Gwen Gale was extensively discussed at the time and even got a . Note the suggestion by BorisG, in response 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 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? ] (]) 13:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Problematic AE closure == | == Problematic AE closure == | ||
Revision as of 13:13, 2 June 2011
Hi there
Hey Anthony, it's been a long time. How have you been? I'm returning to active editing nowadays :) Steven Zhang 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Steve! I'm very glad to see that you've returned. I had actually noticed an edit by you a couple of weeks back, but weren't sure if you were returning "full-time". Are you enjoying your return? AGK 10:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've been pretty good, I now have a little month old daughter, and a new office job that gives me about 2-3hrs free time in an 8 hour day, so I have more free time to edit. That said, I've come back, and a lot has changed (seriously what did they do with all the edit buttons at the top of the edit window? I'm a bit lost in terms of what to do on wiki again. Any ideas? You remember what I used to like doing...well, it hasn't changed, but some stuff I used to do doesn't exist nowadays, or has changed. Thoughts? Steven Zhang 10:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the wean! The aimlessness you feel on Misplaced Pages is common in editors who return after many months in retirement, so I wouldn't fret. I remember that you were quite active at the Mediation Cabal, and that your mediation cases were often successful. Perhaps you could return there. You also created many articles related to 24 (TV series), so perhaps you could return to that, or become an editor or copy-editor for a WikiProject of some other interest of yours. As a matter of experience, editors thrive when they find a niche, so if you have lost yours, the problem might simply be that you haven't found another. AGK 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've been working on 24 (TV series) for the past few days, but have somewhat hit the wall in parts in terms of how to improve it from where it is to could become. In terms of MedCab, I'd love to take on a case again, but there a lack of anything to mediate at present, which is quite a shame. Any suggestions on what I could do in DR, apart from third opinions, which I have already worked on a few, but disputes are few and far between. Getting a bit stuck with stuff to do, to be honest. Just fyi, I was wondering when you'd be made chair of MedCom. It's about time. :) Steven Zhang 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- The lack of cases at MedCab is not surprising; things are quiet on the DR front generally, including at MedCab. You could always chime in at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution, as you've got experience that could lead to useful insight. And maybe, if that RFC solves some of the problems that plague our DR system, there might be plenty more cases to take on in future :). Oddly enough, I was appointed the Chair of MedCom one year and one month today :). AGK 22:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I did see that. I think I might leave my comments there, as I have noticed of late the disputes are more scattered across a larger number of pages. And personally, I felt 3O, MedCab and MedCom for content disputes worked fine. I will leave my opinion there. On another note, I've finally got my head around what I need to do around here. Having it on paper definitely helps :) Steven Zhang 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- You think this case would be too hard for me? Steven Zhang 11:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Finally left my comments at RFC/DR, if you're interested. Steven Zhang 16:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I could just be bold and write up a new page, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution notice board as a proposed page? Steven Zhang 01:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 May 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news
- In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Royal Railway
- Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism
- Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired
- Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Misplaced Pages Offline?
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)
- 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). 09:58, 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.)
- 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)
- 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)
Question
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 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)
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)
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)