→Dissapointed: new section |
→Dissapointed: clarified |
||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
Hi AGK, I am disappointed with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1&action=historysubmit&diff=433112617&oldid=432934852 message you left at my talk page], with you complying with my personal wikihound's request and taking me to AN/I yourself (I wish my wikihound did it itself), and with you presenting the issue as it was review of my block, when in reality it was not. Your presentation of the issue made me vulnerable to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=432881274 attacks ("Mbz is a net negative to the project")] by dirty trolls. |
Hi AGK, I am disappointed with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1&action=historysubmit&diff=433112617&oldid=432934852 message you left at my talk page], with you complying with my personal wikihound's request and taking me to AN/I yourself (I wish my wikihound did it itself), and with you presenting the issue as it was review of my block, when in reality it was not. Your presentation of the issue made me vulnerable to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=432881274 attacks ("Mbz is a net negative to the project")] by dirty trolls. |
||
If you presented the issue as it was review of my block, I wish you were there for me and not against me, but this is probably to much to ask for. [[First they came…|Here's a good quote to read and to remember]]. |
|||
On the other hand I am happy you got out of the situation, and I am sorry about Sandstein's comment that hurt your feelings.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 03:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
On the other hand I am happy you got out of the situation, and I am sorry about Sandstein's comment that hurt your feelings.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 03:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 03:14, 24 June 2011
Ongoing case
I understand that you are busy but this must be the first time a case has remained open beyond the term of the reported party's sanction. After all the froth and bubble at AE, Russavia has finally lodged an amendment request [1] as I suggested [2]. I think after 8 days the case is well and truly stale. At this late stage any further action would be seen as punitive rather than preventative. The case is rapidly descending into a circus, with further accusations [3],[4] (which I don't want to be forced into interaction by having to respond) in an apparent attempt at retaliation for me originally seeking admin assistance to prevent continued violation beyond this. --Martin (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration and am sorry for the continued delay. I will review the enforcement request at present, put an end to any unhelpful discussion, and then conclusively action the thread. With regards to your point that to belatedly sanction you now would be punitive, I also empathise with that point, but in answer would observe that, before low-level conduct enforcement was delegated to community administrators by the Arbitration Committee, specific instances of misconduct would often be dealt with after a delay of over one, two, and even three months; I would also contend that the busyness of the community's administrators should not result in the non-issuing of sanctions for misconduct. To be clear, I have not yet undertaken a final review of your conduct, although I have looked into the matter on a preliminary basis, and so I am not yet making any comment on the specific enforcement request; rather, I am speaking in general terms. Thank you for your ongoing patience. Best, AGK [•] 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- In light of the explicit exemption to reporting interaction ban violations by the other party contained in WP:IBAN, while the block now cannot be undone, would you consider amending the result as requested here. I would consider the matter closed if you did, otherwise I would have to seek ArbCom's input into the matter. Thanks for your time. --Martin (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am disappointed that after admitting that the basis of your original block was wrong in light of policy contained in WP:IBAN here, you have found a new reason to justify your block, one which I find is also flawed. I had hoped this could have be settled and made good. I would have atleast expected you to amend the result of the AE case to reflect your new rationale before closing, as this is effectively a record for future reference and the recorded result no longer reflects this new rationale of yours and is now, in fact, misleading. --Martin (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did not intentionally neglect to update the enforcement request, and will do so later when I have a moment. Please explain how my updated reasoning reasoning is flawed. Thank you, AGK [•] 10:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- For some who states on their user page they "work mostly in Arbitration decision enforcement", I am astonished by your apparent poor knowledge of Wikipedia:Banning policy. I think it best I articulate why your new reason is flawed in a request to the Arbitration committee, which I will lodge in the next few days. --Martin (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban states that, "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: […] undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)." X is you, Russavia is Y, and you undid his change in the second of the two edits that I linked to on your talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- For some who states on their user page they "work mostly in Arbitration decision enforcement", I am astonished by your apparent poor knowledge of Wikipedia:Banning policy. I think it best I articulate why your new reason is flawed in a request to the Arbitration committee, which I will lodge in the next few days. --Martin (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did not intentionally neglect to update the enforcement request, and will do so later when I have a moment. Please explain how my updated reasoning reasoning is flawed. Thank you, AGK [•] 10:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am disappointed that after admitting that the basis of your original block was wrong in light of policy contained in WP:IBAN here, you have found a new reason to justify your block, one which I find is also flawed. I had hoped this could have be settled and made good. I would have atleast expected you to amend the result of the AE case to reflect your new rationale before closing, as this is effectively a record for future reference and the recorded result no longer reflects this new rationale of yours and is now, in fact, misleading. --Martin (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
question
Hey there AGK, they say the only stupid question is one that goes unasked ... soooo .... I noticed that several people got added to the MMN case "per arb. decision" ... is that a discussion that's held in public?, a private discussion? .. a single arb can request it? ... or none of my business? ... I was just wondering is all. ... and NOOOOO I do NOT want to be added ... lol. — Ched : ? 19:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- An action undertaken with the annotation "by Committee direction" or similar will always have been at the explicit instruction to the clerk by an arbitrator, usually through the private clerks' mailing list. It is appreciated that, because the mailing list is private, other editors cannot check that the ostensibly-authorised action is valid, but we have accepted for a few years now that that trade-off is preferable to using forms of communication that are less convenient than e-mail and the mailing list. If at any point there is reason to doubt the validity of a clerk action, an editor is welcome to ask for confirmation from the Committee. I hope this clears things up. Regards, AGK [•] 20:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- TYVM. I wasn't questioning the action in the least, it's simply that I hadn't ever noticed any on-wiki discussions by the Arbs about adding editors to a case. I realize that it's often more expedient to reach a decision via an email or IRC, and I was just curious about the process. Again, thank you for your time. Cheers and Best. — Ched : ? 20:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of course. And yes, it is simply for convenience; and e-mail is only ever used for co-ordination, and never for arbitrator decision-making (except, of course, outside of the context of clerking, and for private matters, on arbcom-l). Also, we never use IRC for co-ordination, because that's a Very Bad Thing ;). Regards, AGK [•] 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Never at all. In fact, #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks connect only exists for completely benign purposes ;) NW (Talk) 20:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of course. And yes, it is simply for convenience; and e-mail is only ever used for co-ordination, and never for arbitrator decision-making (except, of course, outside of the context of clerking, and for private matters, on arbcom-l). Also, we never use IRC for co-ordination, because that's a Very Bad Thing ;). Regards, AGK [•] 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
MickMacNee/Chester Markel Arb
Is there a proceedural consequence to the arbitration of Chester Markel being banned? (I'm obviously not asking about whether it effects the credibility/strength of the case etc). Does it have to have a party fulfilling Chester Markel's role to progress? If it does I'd be willing to offer myself as a party. Obviously, I'd rather not. (Posted same question to other clerk in case you're not around) DeCausa (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that MMN should be informed of the latest developments, and that the case remains open with an explanation of why that is the case. I would do it myself, but I don't want to give MMN any further reason to say that I'm harassing him (not that I have been, of course). It would be better coming from you. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question answered by Alexandr (other clerk). DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in responding. Alexandr is correct, and I have made a statement clearing up the matter on the evidence talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 19:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
{{Talkback|Hammersoft|Notification regarding MickMacNee case}}
- Read and responded. AGK [•] 17:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
{{talkback|AgadaUrbanit|Topic-banned for 6 months}}
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Read and responded. AGK [•] 21:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
ANI
The reason I get "confrontational" is that when I ask a question or raise an issue, I keep getting weaselly responses. It's become obvious that the entire discussion is a waste of time, because no one is going to do anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess that's a fair point. I concur that the disussion has mostly become useless. Regards, AGK [•] 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dissapointed
Hi AGK, I am disappointed with the message you left at my talk page, with you complying with my personal wikihound's request and taking me to AN/I yourself (I wish my wikihound did it itself), and with you presenting the issue as it was review of my block, when in reality it was not. Your presentation of the issue made me vulnerable to attacks ("Mbz is a net negative to the project") by dirty trolls.
If you presented the issue as it was review of my block, I wish you were there for me and not against me, but this is probably to much to ask for. Here's a good quote to read and to remember.
On the other hand I am happy you got out of the situation, and I am sorry about Sandstein's comment that hurt your feelings.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You must be logged in to post a comment.