Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 30 March 2012 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 3d) to User talk:AGK/Archive/73.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:AGK/Notice

Your message on my talk page

{{talkback|Russavia}}

Also in the interest of ease, I am also copypasting my response below so that you have a record of it on your talk page too. Please reply on my talk page, not here. Thanks Russavia 02:17, 27 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)

I've responded on your talk page, (a disgraceful) 13 hours late. AGK 13:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Russavia removed my comment to you from his talk page, I will leave it here instead and trust you to understand the context. I would like to point out that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ was not my RFC. It was certified by three other users (not including the user who originally certified Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ash) and literally dozens of editors supported at least some of the concerns expressed therein. Although there are a small number of users here who benefit from mischaracterizing this as a dispute between two editors, I expect better from an ArbCom member. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

clean start

I would like to discontinue this account and start a new one. Is this possible as I have no blocks against me.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Buck 11:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipediaforum

Hi AGK, I am somewhat disappointed by you saying on my talk page that you were in favour of blocking editors over the harassment of Fae at his RFC/U, yet you are posting here, cohorting with the very people who were harassing him. Why do you feel it's important to do this? Just wondering, because the impression of that I know isn't a good one. Just curious. Russavia 19:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I should say by cohorting I mean associating with them, even if it is to tell Eric Barbour what a tool he is; I know he's a tool, you know he's a tool, gawd, he know's he a tool. But wouldn't it be best to keep out of their house, so to speak? Do you agree that these sites are basically attack sites? Or not? Again, just curious at to your thoughts. Russavia 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• • I would hardly say I was associating with Eric Barbour. A comment I posted on your talk page was, you will see, relayed to that website; and in the course of the discussion, that individual said something rather objectionable to which I responded. The venue is more than the sum of its participants, especially only one, and I happen to support its purpose: to be a Misplaced Pages critique site which is less dirty than WR. If you do not agree with the existence of these sites at all, then I suppose that is fundamental difference of opinion - and an understandable one, because many editors object to these sites, just as many editors think they are useful. It's certainly a good point that it might be better to keep away from any site he uses, simply to deny him the attention, but again I think critique sites are (in principle) a good thing. AGK 22:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)