Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russavia (talk | contribs) at 14:06, 27 March 2012 (→Comment from AGK: question for Fae). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Russavia/Top

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Comment from AGK

• Russavia, if I was just a little more sure that "tied up" in your reply to Fae is not the innocent idiom it purports to be, I would block you indefinitely for abusive behaviour. AGK 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Before I respond to you AGK, I am asking you a serious question here. Are you serious with what you wrote above? Or are you simply buggering about? Serious question asked, serious answer requested. Then you will get my response. Russavia 21:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not waiting for a response from you AGK.

1. Have you seen Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Outside_view_by_Russavia?
2. Have you seen User_talk:Fae#Harassment.
3. Did you see the emails I sent to Arbcom regarding the actual abusive behaviour and harassment that Fae was subjected to at that RfC? I know they were received because I got replies "thanking" me for bringing it to the Arbcom's attention.
4. Did you see the other emails that were sent to Arbcom by other parties? I know they were sent, and I know they were received.

So AGK, tell me, being a member of the above referenced spineless Arbcom, can you tell me where you stood on the issues I have just linked to, and which I emailed Arbcom about? Do your other Comrades want to chime in with their stance? You lot aren't known for your transparency, so I am guessing this question will go unanswered. But that is the modus operandi isn't it? Leaving issues unanswered.

Are you, or the Arbcom, willing to tell us in the open why you ALL sat silent and did absolutely diddly squat about what was going on around the time of the RFC/U? Gutless is how I would describe the general situation, and cowards is how I would describe the Arbcom as a whole in this situation.

And now, you come to my talk page, and accuse me of being abusive towards Fae?

I honestly don't know who you are trying to impress, or what you are trying to prove, but if you were serious about abusive behaviour towards Fae, you would have done your job several weeks ago.

I've shown the committee in the past to be a bunch of incompetent fools who would rather close ranks to defend themselves as a group and continue with their non-transparent ways (TLAM unblock); and this seems to be yet another instance of Arbcom incompetence.

If you would like to continue with the outing of Arbcoms neglect on this issue (and this includes yours...especially yours), then please stay seated on that high horse, and I will continue to expose your fraudulent ways so long as you keep coming into my house and waving your tools around in my face like you have here.

So, anyway, you were saying? Russavia 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In my own view, irrespective of an arbitrator's individual distaste for the abusive undercurrent to the Fae RFC, the committee as a body is not qualified to summarily shut down community discussion about an ostensibly-legitimate problem. Therefore, we did "diddly squat" because we were between a rock and a hard place. If we closed the RFC, one portion of the community would be in uproar that we are intervening in genuine dispute resolution. If we did not close the RFC, another portion would view us as unwilling to intervene in what they perceive as harassment. (A third option might be to try to guide the RFC towards closure using an advisory statement, but I am dubious as to the value of such statements, and I have no doubt that it would have had no effect in the given case.)

If you look at the situation from a more balanced view, I'm sure you will realise that ArbCom was never going to float down from on high and dispense natural justice. We are simply not qualified or authorised to intervene in cases like this. You may think us to be incompetent fools (and may be the grand analyser of committee performance you purport to be), but it is the community of your peers that has limited our power - and rightfully so - to act as a super-government. Of course, it remains the case that I, personally, wanted to shut the whole thing down and indefinitely block the proponents, but I am only one vote in a committee of fifteen, so this is an irrelevancy

I did not remember reading your outside view at the RFC (and I never did read Fae's talk page), so of course my predisposition to misinterpret - what was, admittedly, an unhappy choice of words - was an assumption of bad faith on my part. I apologise for this. I assure you that I am not "trying to impress" anyone or "trying to prove" anything, though I'm not entirely sure what on earth you might mean by that. I'll be waiting four hours then sending you an e-mail that you must respond, because of course I "will not be waiting for a response"... (Do you see now how unreasonable that is?) Regards, AGK 13:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note for context: This thread was forked from a previous thread by Russavia. --AGK 13:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AGK, considering correspondence about my harassment earlier this year, I am astonished to find out that you, and presumably the other committee members, never took the time to read Delicious carbuncle's RFC/U against me. You may want to do so now, including the abusive use of off-wiki speculation about my sex life on the associated talk page. I have no idea how Arbcom could consider any decision for action or inaction appropriate if this sort of information (that was highlighted to the committee) was ignored. As the victim of abuse, your statement here is the closest I have come to receiving any official feedback on these matters. In fact I have seen more thought and engagement from Arbcom members replying to questions from banned users on Misplaced Pages Review than I have found in reply to my direct emails. Perhaps the message intended from Arbcom is that I should use off-wiki manipulation to get things done rather than wasting my time on-wiki? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fae. Because this is going to go to the heart of the issue and will not only greatly influence my reply to AGK, but will determine whether this needs to be investigated further, can you please confirm for me that it is a true and correct statement that you made above, in that AGK was made aware by yourself of the harassment you were undergoing, and that his statement above is the only response that you have received from AGK (or the Arbcom) on that matter? Russavia 14:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)