592:
three steps because I think you are a good and useful editor but the impetus has to come from you. I think
Bwilkins has accurately pointed out the problem, that you need to recognize that we're all volunteers here, that we're all acting in good faith, and that angry accusations and abusive behavior doesn't help the site. You should acknowledge that via email to both Bwilkins as well as Spartaz. The block itself is not that serious. A commitment that you will not violate the ban along with a statement that you thought the ban applies only to article space would have been more than enough to get the block lifted and still might be enough to do so as long as it is presented in a straightforward fashion and without ascribing motives to anyone. Once these two steps are done, the ban discussion can proceed at arbcom. You might find that you have more support for the ban being lifted than you think but you need to be straightforward in your reasoning and should try not to drag other editors into the discussion. All this has to come from you, so please do think about it. --
1213:(I EC'd earlier and this is the only place I can thread my comment and continue to make sense) "preventative not punitive" doesn't really cut it when the behaviour being sanctioned is as far away from the expected norms as this was that the only possible consequence is to remove that editor's participation in the project. Frankly, the only sense of regret that I'm getting from MrT is that he regrets the consequences of his actions rather than the actual actions themselves. I'd suggest that any consideration of how sorry he really is and how that should absolve him from his actions can only be done in conjunction with the email that he sent me via Bwilkins and full disclosure of what he actually sent. Until this emerges - and that's purely MrT's decision - no-one who is not privy to the contents of those emails is able to make any informed judgement about this matter. I strongly suggest that the peanut gallery butt out as the uninformed speculation and "what ifs" are actually not doing anyone any good. Thanks.
219:
original response so unacceptable? I'm feeling in something of a quandry because I'd like to get some second opinions, but I can't really do that without revealing your email and I'm not prepared to do that even if you agreed to it because the contents really don't reflect well on you. I'd like to see some acknowledgement that the way you responded was inappropriate and in particular some reflection on the contents of your email. The fundamental problem is whether you can change the way you react to disagreement enough to elimate the battleground and editwarring that has characterised so much of your recent behaviour on wiki. If that's not going to change then unblocking you is ultimately going to be a waste of your time and other editors' effort. I was planning to unlock your email once it was clear that you were in control but based on what you have said I'm going to leave the conversation here until we have made some progress.
1650:(EC)I have said how many times on this page that we cannot reveal the emails from MrT without breaching the privacy policy? Yet you say we will be revealing them. Your clear implication is that one of us will breach the privacy policy. If that's not what you mean then you need to take a lot more care in your drafting than you have so far. Or alternatively, read what we have written more carefully and actually understand what we mean before wasting time commenting while ill informed. None of your intercessions so far has been helpful to anyone so why don't you butt out and leave MrT to decide for himself where he goes next.
1812:
1924:
1765:
regarding
Spartaz. (2) See RegentsPark's last comment. As I read it; the only way forward for you, in my opinion, is to post the emails on this page, and appeal for an unblock after expressing regret for those emails, and after assuring that such action from you won't be repeated. I don't see the burning need for email access, it would be easier for you to gain it after you've demonstrated a certain duration of editing in which you don't abuse editors.
104:
51:
331:
570:
If an Ed is majorly (and temporarily) angry, it can just build frustration. It is a difficult call, attempting to weigh up often an unknown Eds temperament and history, and reconciling that with the WP related issue. Mr T, you have seriously lost your temper here with the whole "system". Just think before you type mate. Try to unpick one issue at a time, and this is the time to think and talk like a
1883:
614:
The appropriate venue for that oversight is for MrT to email the BASC and seek overview that way. I honestly don't know how they will react to any request. In the real world anyone sending the email I received in a workplace situation would have been suspended on the spot and in my workplace I'd be astonished if they were not dismissed so this isn't just your common-place angry ventogram.
411:. In fact, if you did that to me in person, I'd be laying charges against you - and I would win. Your actions were unwarranted, and you seem to think that they should be instantly forgiven ... even though you're not asking for forgiveness. On what planet do you believe such vitriol is appropriate? This project is an electronic workspace - the same rules for the real world apply here (
448:" — on a virtual space where admins try to rationalize their own misconducts and imprudence. On a virtual space where people are robbed of their freedom of expressing what they think as iniquitous treatment. Need I go on?? This sort of double-standard needs to stop right now. Use your head. From my past experience with you, I don't expect you would understand my frustration. I have
1680:@Spartaz/ @All: "Bwilkins" wrote: "No, the e-mails would be posted with the e-mail address stripped out for privacy reasons." I misread/ read it the way manifest from my reactions to it. Kindly disregard any allusions that I've made to "making Mr T's email" public, if that isn't what he meant. I would have struck out my comments but they are all over the place.
1541:
never ever repeat. That's a lot of work. It would also, however, show the lowest base-level of behaviour that he can drop to - which would create a chilling effect on all other editors of the project in the future. No editor - indeed, no human being - should have been attacked in that manner. This may be the internet, but we're
574:. Keep calm, and tackle the issue, not the personality. That is why I am steering away from edding controversial issues at this stage in my development here. I find perspective is the first thing I lose, apart from my lighter. Cheers all. Hopefully all helping in good faith can unpick this issue and find a less stressy way forward.
1078:
based on the contents of what you wrote. The
Arbitration Committee has copies of the emails, and should you not wish to disclose them, we can go back and review it. As I said though, BASC very rarely actually overturns a community block (I believe in Q1 2013, the figure was 3/43, and 2 of those were referred to the full Committee).
1625:
I don't see why my comments would offend you
Spartaz, give me a chance to explain, well we are all volunteers and we have limited time for Knowledge, out of that time we spend time on Mr T's case, so I was suggesting to Mr T that since the consensus was for him to publish his email or that they would
1482:
Maunus please don't post comments on my talk, I am saying this because a comment from me about you may seem as a violation of my topic ban as was in the case of my comment on
Darkness Shines, I am still unsure of the rules for which I was blocked by Spartaz for the first time in this episode, so if I
218:
I'm not expecting any gratitue and I don't expect grovelling either. What I want to do is find some way forward that would allow me to shorten your block. Whether or not you are happy with the block is immaterial. The issue is whether you can deal with it without the emotional outburts that made your
1764:
and I have a long association in which we have been critical of each other, but I am sincerely appreciative of his action above to have risen above our individual differences and said something in my support when he thought I was right or that I meant right. I suggest you strike your above comments
1602:
who have seen them. That said, in my experience of handling unblock appeals (in so far as an admin may, without being a member of Arbcom), continuing to make appeals when block/ban appeals have been exhausted simply demonstrates further that editing restrictions should probably not be
822:
There is nothing to stop him asking the BASC to unlock his talk page as an interim measure while the block appeal is working its way but because of the privacy issues around the emails he sent, this probably isn't something for UTRS. Disclosure of the emails can only be made to a functionary per the
1741:
Spartaz's presence on my talk. I would really like to keep this talk free of any activity for the next few days, I have not requested any public unblock that means I am not yet ready to make the emails visible to public. I need some time alone. I believe these are my prerogatives. If I am forced to
613:
None of you guys are able to properly comment on this because you haven't seen the emails that MrT sent. The only reason that I have not opened a wider discussion on this situation is because to do so would require publishing the emails and that would be a breach of the foundations privacy policy.
569:
I dunno. The unfortunate emails appear to have been a consequence of Mr Ts normal lines of communication being cut. Ok, I understand the reasoning, let the Ed have a chance to chill and reflect. I have seen it deployed as part of Admins' initial response to a situation. But it does not always work.
389:
When he is amenable you're not and now when you're amenable he is not. Why can't you just tell me what it actually is? You guys don't want to allow me to edit. You're offended by the emails and now you want to seek revenge. Well, good luck with that. Now you, in a typical pharisaical manner, excuse
315:
where any request to be unblocked can be dealt with in accordance with the privacy policy. If you were interested in my opinion, I would suggest that you go directly to BASC as they can overrule admins and UTRS would still need a community discussion. I am genuinely sorry it has come to this but we
1540:
No, the e-mails would be posted with the e-mail address stripped out for privacy reasons. MrT's stuck between a rock and a hard place: the only possible chance of requesting unblock is for the e-mails to be made public, and for MrT to line-by line on each e-mail explain, apologize, and promise to
1417:
I don't know what was in those emails but, fairly obviously from the discussion above, they were toxic in content. Given that, it is understandable that Mrt doesn't want to make them public. Perhaps it would be possible to selectively let a few admins review the emails and see if it is possible to
1198:
Wouldn't that be punitive? He says he is wrong, he regrets, he undertakes not to repeat, is a six month wait justified except to punish him for his emails. I don't say that he ought not to be punished if the offense is grave, but always it has been emphasised that action on
Knowledge is preventive
474:
No. I'm not an "almighty admin"; I'm a human being - and as I have continually treated you like one - even recommending that you be provided the chance to request an unblock, when the community thought otherwise. As such, I expected to be treated like a human being as well. Look, I don't follow
437:
who couldn't hold it off any longer. I am an imbecile, not as cunning and adroit in sophistry as you guys are perhaps, I tell it as I see it. Thus, I am very susceptible to baiting. It's too late but I have come to realize that forthright assertions are discouraged both in articles and discussions
1707:
Spartaz, YK, you both need to let this go. YK is making a good faith attempt to get MrT back into the system and repeatedly trying to cut him down is not the right thing to do. YK, you and I have made a few suggestions, the people behind BASC are presumably looking at them and they may or may not
1080:
When I said "we", I may have been hasty and/or confused your situation with another appellant. Only one other
Arbitrator reviewed your appeal and posted his or her thoughts to the mailing list, which was a recommendation to decline your appeal. I wouldn't want to speak for him or her, but I would
625:
I think we all get that
Spartaz. What I'm trying to do is to help Mr. T establish a path back. That path, imo, starts with a clear statement to you and Bwilkins acknowledging the inappropriateness of his email and acknowledging the volunteer nature of this venture along the lines of what Bwilkins
591:
MrT, you need to look at the bigger picture here because you're in danger of getting kicked out by the system. You need to focus on a three step process as the way forward. First, get access to your talk page. Second, get unblocked. Third, get the ban lifted. Personally, I will support you in all
479:
with all of your edits, and I don't take sides on disputes unless there's a good reason to do so. What I don't agree with most, however, is how you instantly attack people - even those of us who have TRIED to extend an olive branch, or show some degree of goodwill. That is unacceptable, and you
1077:
The community cannot hear appeals without knowing the full circumstances behind what necessitated the block. Taking your word for it that you will not repeat it doesn't do much good if they don't know what the bad thing was in the first place, and they might wish to craft additional restrictions
557:
I originally locked off the talkpage because MrT was becoming increasingly angry and I was concerned that he would do himself some damage. Had he left things where they were, his original block would have been almost expired and the matter would have been over. There is no way that I could have
1222:
The idea that sanctions are preventative and not punitive does not necessarily imply that once a person says "I won't do that again, honest" we must unblock. To do so, we need to be sure that the appellant is actually able and willing to follow through on his commitment. In this case, despite
480:
continue to do it. You're claiming some form of admin abuse from someone ... but have neither provided links to any, or attempted to prove any. Every action taken against you has been done to protect the project from your anger. It's not those half-dozen admins who have fucked up, it's
307:. On that basis, we seem to have no valid on-wiki way to move forward as I am not prepared to unblock you unilaterally and I am also unwilling to publicly publish the email you sent me to allow an on-wiki consensus to develop. On that basis, you have two options. You can contact
1550:
ban ... and I can pretty much guarantee that the community would decline an unblock right now. Or, MrT can request BASC/ArbComm deal with his unblock request - that's not likely to succeed either, considering that they have all seen the e-mails. So yes ... rock...hard place.
1070:
regarding your indefinite block. As we explained, BASC does not hear appeals of topic bans via email. The full
Arbitration Committee does hear those appeals via email, but only in conjunction with hearing appeals of indefinite blocks upon referral from BASC, or publicly at
406:
Revenge? No. You were not venting, you were abusive. I'm a volunteer here - as are you. If you were a volunteer at the Boy Scouts and you pulled another volunteer into another room and swore at them, called them disgusting names, abused them, and verbally attacked them
1545:
on the other end of the wire and you need to treat us exactly the same as if we were standing in front of you. I could very easily right now take this to ANI to ask for a "community review of the unblock request" - if the community declines, then that would become a
1665:
what Mr T has said on this page, and his subsequent block and unblock has been quite fair, I see no reason for being critical. Wasn't it said on this very page by another admin that we as volunteers have the same privileges? I request you to strike those remarks
941:
Please note that this is a decision by an individual arbitrator, and as such per our procedures, if another
Arbitrator objects to my decision, it may be vacated and the matter referred to the full Committee for discussion. Sincerely, NuclearWarfare ArbCom
1826:
Michael is hereby awarded the Indian Navy barnstar of merit for his exceptional contributions to the Indian Navy articles and for his efforts to improve the quality of many of the Indian military articles in general. Thank you very much! Cheers,
1708:
decide to use them (may not is my guess based on Bwilkins comment). If this doesn't work, MrT always has the opportunity of applying for a clean start after whatever time is required but it is fairly clear that the matter is out of our hands. --
1759:
I'm sorry for this activity when you desire silence, but I have to write this: (1) Your comments regarding Spartaz are unfortunate. Please understand that on Knowledge one must learn to cooperate with everyone even those who are critical of us.
303:
When I offered to start working towards your unblock, I had assumed that Bwilkins would be amenable to this based on his statement ahead that he would not block you for the email you sent him. It appears that this was an incorrect assumption
527:
Spartaz, you are not really helping matters with your manner of discussion and revoking his talk page access without serious need. Nothing Mr. T has said on this talk page ever warranted revoking access and that action has only inflamed the
201:, I beg of you, don't let me post on this talk because ultimately it's useless to speak to deaf ears. That's the highest level of politeness I can evince right now. I am not at all hopeful that this comment would have any effect on anyone.
153:
Hopefully you have calmed down by now and we need to see if we can find a way forward. My intention with the indef block was undetermined rather than forever and that's subject to your being calm enough to start moving forward.
514:*sigh* Clearly this isn't helping anyone - not least yourself. I have turned off your talkpage again. You can email BASC without needing your talkpage. I'm very sorry that I tried to find a way out of this situation for you.
484:. I really hoped you would take some time away to re-think your approach to the other human beings on this project. I DO think you have things to add to this project, but we cannot accept the bullshit that comes with it. (
1223:
previous assurances, Mr T has shown that his conduct, when editing Indian topics, is often problematic. For that I'm hesitant to support an unblock (for those wondering, I was the other arb who voted to decline his appeal).
1152:
Taking your word for it that you will not repeat it doesn't do much good if they don't know what the bad thing was in the first place, and they might wish to craft additional restrictions based on the contents of what you
1661:@Spartaz: Your "peanut gallery" comment is very hurtful and inaccurate. Why are my edits called irrelevant or insignificant criticism. Why should questions being asked by editors be derided? To be frank, Mr T's treatment
1583:
Alternatively you can just stop speculating. The second element of your comment is extremely offensive to those of us who have taken great care to comply with the foundation's privacy policy with regard to MrT's emails.
184:
block which frankly seems to be the "worst wrong" on top of other "wrongs". I am a very predictable guy; I try my best to be consistent with my behaviour. My style of expression might have been changed but I feel the
751:
The situation is very fluid and confusing, so he's been blocked from editing his talk page again. How does he then communicate with Knowledge now? Assuming he wishes to have the email made public and apologise etc.?
1174:, imagine if the emails were filled with racial slurs. The community would certainly be justified in saying "we do not accept your expressions of regret; wait six months and try again." Now, my hypothetical does
1487:
be interpreted as a comment about you and might serve as reason to extend my block and beyond, so I will appreciate if you didn't post on my talk until I am unblocked. I know you're trying to help perhaps. I am
433:" - but deep down there is a big difference between your capabilities and my capabilities, isn't it? You are an almighty Admin who has no clue what he is really supposed to do, OTOH I am just an angry helpless
1630:, he might himself do it. My opinion is that since he has made a mistake which even he acknowledges, he should be quick and get over with it, I opine that if the contents of the email are disclosed by the
1851:
I sincerely hope you resolve the disputes and get back to normal editing soon. Please don't edit the disputed articles and continue your edits to the military articles that really need attention. Thanks,
848:
Thanks Spartz, but I had a look at BASC, and the links there require access to Knowledge's email function. I understand that Mr. T's emailing privileges have been revoked? Would he be able to use BASC?
1022:" — I would like to know the opinions of other arbitrators especially since you're not speaking on their behalf and also to what extent does this have potential to impact the prospects of my future on
232:
The fundamental problem is whether you can change the way you react to disagreement enough to eliminate the battleground and editwarring that has characterised so much of your recent behaviour on wiki.
1514:
Sharing the emails would also mean that making public Mr T's email id, let us wait for Mr T to act. He hasn't said that he won't make them public, he seems to suggest that he would rather not
1634:, his apology would carry less weight. That is how I see the matter. Spartaz if you still feel offended by the way I think; tell me so. I want Mr T to act and not react in this email matter.
369:
about it. Knowledge is a perfect example of adminocracy and certainly I alone cannot do shit. I can only hope that I serve as an example of what direction this "experiment" of a project is
1242:" — please feel free to review it. I encourage you to review it. With all due respect, at this moment I do not wish to make them public. As far as my knowledge goes, it didn't contain any
1422:
Dennis and perhaps a couple of others. But, as I said, I don't know the contents of the email so this is just a thought and assumes that MrT is willing to let others see the emails. --
1009:. Yes, I concede, that was a bad approach. But I don't understand how does it necessitate the disclosure of the contents of emails? I am saying that I will not repeat it ever again.
626:
says above. I doubt if BASC will restore talk page access without some such acknowledgement. Whether that will work or not is a different question but a helping hand never hurts. --
390:
yourself of the terrible injudiciousness and lack of effort to correct it? Enjoy your adminhood. This is why I think comparisons are indispensable to the proof of admin-partiality.
1599:
1453:
You're right - what the heck is going on? Though, from Bwilkins' comment below, it appears that the contents of the email are beyond toxic so my suggestion is likely moot. --
687:
I suggest that Mr T, publishes his email here, to stop speculation about its contents and apologises for its contents, (assuming based on comments above that they are bad).
1356:
I have asked BASC to reconsider your appeal. We will let you know of the outcome within two weeks, hopefully sooner. If you don't hear from us by then, please contact us.
361:, if you ask me. What right does he have to presume that this behaviour is a pattern that could not have been avoided or will not be rectified? Like I said, I am not in a
1122:: Mr T: I think your AE appeal has been suspended as you are not able to participate in it directly. I don't know how to react to your reluctance to share your email.
1895:
1081:
imagine that I both looked over this situation in more detail and was more lenient than he or she would have been. I cannot speak to how our decision will affect an
1607:
restrict appeals only to users who are able to access the Knowledge email facility. Perhaps the appellant and some others commenting here may wish to read
723:
What Sitush said. For what it's worth, if it's worth anything, I'm happy to help out in any way I can with most unfortunate situation. Peter in Australia aka --
558:
predicted what MrT did next and I'm certainly not going to take lessons or lectures based on 20-20 hindsight. If you think its so easy, why don't you take over?
1873:
250:
react to disagreements in a manner that is adequate to eliminate the obvious distrust inculcated in the hearts and minds of the editors who are victimized by
2027:
863:
If you follow the conversation above you will see that I have already commented that BASC are already engaged. I am not party to their discussions with MrT.
784:
Yes, he has already been directed there, and it's my understanding that it's already in-progress. Even someone with a talkpage lock can always e-mail BASC (
442:'s pal does it... gets unblocked again and again). It doesn't really suit my style of articulation which, more often than not, redounds to my disadvantage.
2022:
1075:(a precondition for which is being unblocked). The Committee hears appeals only rarely when the community has not yet had the chance to review the issue.
993:
precondition for my future unblock requests? Just to clarify, I am not particularly inclined on disclosing the contents of the emails. Obviously as
1233:
642:
The case is already with BASC - I was asked for the email this afternoon - so I think we should just let the professionals to deal with this.
1689:
1675:
1391:
1208:
1193:
1164:
1145:
1131:
779:
562:
548:
1433:
1907:
1867:
542:
1578:
1564:
815:
797:
118:. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
1794:
1774:
1654:
1643:
1588:
1371:
1277:
1217:
1108:
1061:
1037:
895:
881:
867:
827:
1527:
1444:
938:
If you wish to make an unblock request to the community, you must disclose to them the text of the emails you sent to various users.
761:
711:
987:
If you wish to make an unblock request to the community, you must disclose to them the text of the emails you sent to various users.
475:
your edits - I don't when and where you've created complaints, and even if I did, I'm under zero obligation to post there. I don't
1912:
646:
637:
618:
1464:
1324:. If I may be so bold, Salvio, I think you're taking something out of context and using it to imply something that is, at best, a
603:
1842:
1598:
Those of us who are not privy to the emails should not speculate on their content. I believe that one should accept the
148:
1620:
905:
664:
583:
497:
469:
424:
265:
have lost my calm anyway but that's the crux of it. This sort of pathetic attempts to rationalize otherwise disgusting behavior
1987:
1349:
961:
518:
401:
384:
320:
291:
280:
223:
212:
1503:
746:
732:
158:
1802:
345:. But then again I never expected any better. I sent an email to Brad which may have been a tad opprobrious, but I should be
1719:
918:
I have spent some time reviewing your appeal and the discussions it has spawned, and I have come to the following decision:
261:
recent behavior on wiki. Some overly harsh and immensely inconsiderate actions are what goaded me to lose my calm, I should
2006:
1753:
1891:
1875:
1155:, I don't know how this works since "Mr T" has expressed regret. Don't we have a "preventive and not punitive" policy?
1246:
slurs. I have never denied the opprobriousness of some of the lines the emails contained, like I said I felt utterly
305:
1991:
537:
858:
696:
1783:
do not stretch this issue any further I am trying to stay away from wiki for a while, so give me some respite.
1560:
793:
660:
493:
420:
341:. As it seems from Bwilkins' comments, his mind is already made up, his thinking doesn't seem to conform with
110:
914:, I have restored Mrt3366's talk page access. Here is a copy of the relevant part of the email I sent him:
1979:
1935:
1913:
718:
189:
about this block as I did few days ago. Whatever is happening is really, really unhelpful to put it very
42:
1569:
I think Mr T ought to come out with the emails to stop speculation and do it before it is done for him.
1983:
1742:
undergo further suffering then I really think it is a tad unfair. I thank everybody for their support.
994:
969:
Thank you very much for restoring the talk access. This would give me a chance to clarify many things.
529:
1898:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
1304:
we need to be sure that the appellant is actually able and willing to follow through on his commitment
1231:
27:
1779:
About (1) it's a two-way street. Really I concur with RP's last comment at 13:34, 9 July 2013. Now
1770:
1685:
1671:
1639:
1574:
1523:
1384:
1364:
1204:
1186:
1160:
1141:
1127:
1101:
954:
877:
854:
811:
775:
757:
692:
71:
1966:
1199:
and not punitive, so I don't see an adherence to that policy in this case. That is how I see it.
1860:
1835:
1714:
1459:
1428:
632:
598:
342:
1943:
No independent sourcing, no evidence of notability (ambassadors are not inherently notable).
1005:
in nature. In the heat of the moment, I said many things in those emails some of which I do
1226:
946:
I hope this helps the rest of the community. Please contact me if you have any questions.
8:
1995:
1766:
1681:
1667:
1635:
1570:
1519:
1377:
1357:
1200:
1179:
1156:
1137:
1123:
1094:
947:
873:
850:
807:
771:
753:
688:
76:
32:
1931:
1917:
316:
wouldn't be here if you hadn't sent the emails. I wish you all the best for the future.
2004:
1903:
1737:
beyond toxic. If my email is enabled I promise to not abuse it again. I am starting to
1552:
1477:
785:
682:
652:
579:
485:
412:
67:
37:
64:
Let's talk. I'm Michael. If you have any query feel free to post it on this talk page.
1962:
1855:
1830:
1616:
891:
728:
1949:
1178:
apply in this circumstance, but the community has to judge the evidence for itself.
349:
deprived of the right to edit the Knowledge based on "the contents of the e-mail ..
337:
I think you should block me out of this talk page again. That would be the best way
69:
1761:
1709:
1454:
1441:
1423:
1085:
742:
707:
627:
593:
234:" - I beg to differ, that is not the fundamental problem I am just a commoner with
1314:
Mr T has shown that his conduct, when editing Indian topics, is often problematic
1072:
737:
Ah, sorry, I've just remembered that I am persona non grata on this talk page. -
1948:
While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be
1811:
287:{Oh and your AE will resume where it left off if we are able to reach agreement
1608:
1067:
911:
312:
308:
823:
foundation privacy policy and that's beyond the pay grade of the UTRS system.
2016:
1999:
1899:
1556:
789:
656:
575:
489:
416:
1316:" - we are not talking about my topic ban, just yet. I am talking about the
1784:
1743:
1651:
1612:
1585:
1493:
1339:
1267:
1214:
1051:
1027:
887:
864:
824:
803:
724:
643:
615:
559:
515:
459:
391:
374:
317:
288:
270:
220:
202:
155:
17:
1972:
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing
872:
Is there any way editors would know the status of Mr. T's appeal to BASC?
357:
Brad himself concedes that I'm "trying to do right". Wow! Typical case of
1093:
And no, right now I do not feel comfortable restoring your email access.
738:
703:
1336:
for those wondering, I was the other arb who voted to decline his appeal
1440:
I believe that Boing and Drmies are no longer part of the admin corps.
74:
997:
rightly pointed out, the talk-block gave “the situation an Orwellian
168:
for this. You've already done irreparable damage. I would obviously
1240:
should you not wish to disclose them, we can go back and review it.
767:
103:
1306:" - Salvio, Sir what must I do to assure you that I will keep my
1886:
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
1729:
As far as I know, my emails were very short and didn't contain
1882:
454:
So just end everything by blocking me out from this talk page
1050:
my email access ever again, can I regain that access please?
1896:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 19#MSRV
330:
164:
I have no idea what I am expected to say. I certainly won't
1887:
1483:
let you comment here I run a risk of saying something that
1418:
craft out a path for MrT back? I'm thinking of admins like
571:
446:
On what planet do you believe such vitriol is appropriate?
73:
68:
91:
983:
setback. And why is it suspended? Is that the only way?
452:
little tolerance for idiotic statements or chicaneries.
1990:
process can result in deletion without discussion, and
702:
He cannot because talk page access has been blocked. -
1955:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
90:, September 23. Time: 16 hrs 24 min(s) 35 second(s) (
2014:
1492:requesting you to stop commenting on my talk.
1044:Your email access will continue to be disabled
1013:this is a decision by an individual arbitrator
928:Your email access will continue to be disabled
806:" to request unblocking his talk page access?
195:If you don't wish to unblock me any time soon
2028:Wikipedians who opt out of template messages
259:(some of the admins I've encountered lately)
2023:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery
1066:The appeal I referred to was the appeal to
1001:feel to it” and seemed abso-bloody-lootely
409:you would not be a volunteer there anymore
1809:
1258:to a certain extent and obviously, I was
252:your vindictive and autocratic mentality
1961:notice, but please explain why in your
1820:Admiral of the Fleet of the Indian Navy
1262:when I wrote the emails, I won't do it
1091:request on your part, as I do not know.
1020:have indeed been considering your case.
931:Your talk page access will be restored.
438:(but we are supposed to accept it when
2015:
802:Would it be possible for him to use "
98:
114:. Mrt3366 has not edited Knowledge
13:
1950:deleted for any of several reasons
1938:because of the following concern:
1922:
979:AE appeal is suspended, that is a
431:I'm a volunteer here - as are you.
254:that has characterized so much of
49:
14:
2039:
1136:Thanks NW for the status update.
111:This user may have left Knowledge
1894:. This discussion will occur at
1881:
1810:
651:Hmm...they didn't ask for my 3 (
329:
102:
973:Your appeal to us is suspended.
934:Your appeal to us is suspended.
149:I have reenabled your talk page
989:" — again, why? How is that a
1:
1908:09:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
1803:Indian Navy Barnstar of Merit
1015:" but you also claimed that "
925:You will remain topic-banned.
1868:07:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
1843:07:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
1376:The appeal has been denied.
1068:the ban appeals subcommittee
7:
1994:allows discussion to reach
1975:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
1958:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
1442:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
10:
2044:
1986:exist. In particular, the
1011:It is written above that "
766:Perhaps he needs to write
2007:11:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
1980:proposed deletion process
1816:
1795:08:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
1775:05:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
1754:04:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
1611:more closely (all of it).
1392:12:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
995:User:The Devil's Advocate
906:Talk page access restored
584:22:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
549:21:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
519:13:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
498:12:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
470:12:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
425:12:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
402:11:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
385:11:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
321:11:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
292:09:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
281:11:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
224:09:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
213:08:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
176:, is archived because of
159:07:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
1876:Redirects for discussion
1720:13:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1690:08:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1676:07:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1655:07:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1644:07:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1621:04:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1589:16:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1579:15:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1565:14:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1528:14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1504:14:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1465:15:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1445:14:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1434:14:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1372:13:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
1350:14:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1278:14:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1234:13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1218:17:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1209:13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1194:13:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1165:13:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1146:10:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1132:10:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1109:12:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1062:07:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
1038:07:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
962:18:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
922:You will remain blocked.
896:06:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
882:06:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
868:08:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
859:06:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
828:19:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
816:15:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
798:14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
780:12:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
762:12:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
747:12:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
733:11:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
712:11:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
697:11:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
665:23:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
647:16:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
638:15:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
619:03:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
604:00:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
563:03:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
125:
1967:the article's talk page
1890:and has thus listed it
1518:if it isn't necessary.
977:May I know what appeal?
172:it if my AE appeal, my
1946:
1927:
1322:each and every article
944:
60:Welcome to my talkpage
54:
1992:articles for deletion
1940:
1936:proposed for deletion
1926:
1171:Purely hypothetically
916:
804:Ticket Request System
53:
532:The Devil's Advocate
180:utterly deleterious
246:can change the way
242:problem is whether
1984:deletion processes
1928:
1725:Ask the recipients
1626:be published with
1600:decisions of those
1517:
130:
55:
1914:Proposed deletion
1874:"MSRV" listed at
1848:
1847:
1733:slurs. They were
1718:
1515:
1481:
1463:
1432:
719:talk page stalker
636:
602:
260:
141:
140:
124:
122:
121:
96:
2035:
2002:
1998:for deletion. —
1977:
1976:
1960:
1959:
1932:François Richier
1925:
1918:François Richier
1885:
1865:
1863:
1858:
1840:
1838:
1833:
1814:
1807:
1806:
1790:
1787:
1749:
1746:
1712:
1559:
1499:
1496:
1475:
1457:
1426:
1387:
1367:
1345:
1342:
1318:indefinite block
1273:
1270:
1230:
1189:
1150:"NW": You write
1104:
1090:
1084:
1057:
1054:
1033:
1030:
957:
792:
722:
659:
630:
596:
545:
540:
534:
492:
465:
462:
419:
397:
394:
380:
377:
333:
276:
273:
258:
208:
205:
135:
134:
129:
106:
99:
95:
84:
77:
52:
45:
40:
35:
30:
25:
20:
2043:
2042:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2000:
1988:speedy deletion
1974:
1973:
1957:
1956:
1923:
1921:
1879:
1861:
1856:
1854:
1836:
1831:
1829:
1805:
1788:
1785:
1747:
1744:
1613:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1555:
1497:
1494:
1385:
1365:
1343:
1340:
1271:
1268:
1224:
1187:
1102:
1088:
1082:
1055:
1052:
1046:" — I will not
1031:
1028:
955:
908:
888:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
788:
716:
685:
655:
547:
543:
538:
530:
488:
463:
460:
415:
395:
392:
378:
375:
274:
271:
206:
203:
151:
142:
116:since July 2013
85:
82:
81:
78:
72:
56:
50:
46:
41:
36:
31:
26:
21:
16:
12:
11:
5:
2041:
2031:
2030:
2025:
1978:will stop the
1920:
1911:
1892:for discussion
1878:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1846:
1845:
1823:
1822:
1817:
1815:
1804:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1767:Yogesh Khandke
1727:
1726:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1682:Yogesh Khandke
1668:Yogesh Khandke
1659:
1658:
1657:
1636:Yogesh Khandke
1593:
1592:
1591:
1571:Yogesh Khandke
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1520:Yogesh Khandke
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1437:
1436:
1420:Boing, Drmies,
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1333:
1311:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1236:
1220:
1201:Yogesh Khandke
1157:Yogesh Khandke
1138:Yogesh Khandke
1134:
1124:Yogesh Khandke
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1092:
1079:
1076:
1040:
1010:
984:
970:
936:
935:
932:
929:
926:
923:
907:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
874:Yogesh Khandke
851:Yogesh Khandke
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
808:Yogesh Khandke
772:Yogesh Khandke
754:Yogesh Khandke
689:Yogesh Khandke
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
589:
588:
587:
586:
567:
566:
565:
552:
551:
536:
522:
521:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
453:
443:
365:to want to do
343:WP:NOTPUNITIVE
324:
323:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
285:
284:
283:
150:
147:
145:
143:
139:
138:
133:
123:
120:
119:
107:
75:
70:
66:
57:
48:
47:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2040:
2029:
2026:
2024:
2021:
2020:
2018:
2009:
2008:
2005:
2003:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1970:
1968:
1964:
1953:
1951:
1945:
1944:
1939:
1937:
1933:
1919:
1915:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1884:
1877:
1869:
1866:
1864:
1859:
1850:
1849:
1844:
1841:
1839:
1834:
1825:
1824:
1821:
1818:
1813:
1808:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1782:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1763:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1716:
1711:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1603:lifted. BASC
1601:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1587:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1544:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1491:
1486:
1479:
1478:edit conflict
1474:
1473:
1466:
1461:
1456:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1435:
1430:
1425:
1421:
1416:
1413:
1412:
1393:
1390:
1388:
1381:
1380:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1368:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1337:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1320:from editing
1319:
1315:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1235:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1221:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1192:
1190:
1183:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1098:
1097:
1087:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1025:
1021:
1019:
1014:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
982:
978:
974:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
960:
958:
951:
950:
943:
939:
933:
930:
927:
924:
921:
920:
919:
915:
913:
910:On behalf of
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
866:
862:
861:
860:
856:
852:
829:
826:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
800:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
782:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
750:
749:
748:
744:
740:
736:
735:
734:
730:
726:
720:
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
694:
690:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
645:
641:
640:
639:
634:
629:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
617:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
600:
595:
585:
581:
577:
573:
568:
564:
561:
556:
555:
554:
553:
550:
546:
541:
535:
533:
526:
525:
524:
523:
520:
517:
513:
512:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
478:
473:
472:
471:
468:
466:
457:
451:
447:
441:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
405:
404:
403:
400:
398:
388:
387:
386:
383:
381:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
319:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
293:
290:
286:
282:
279:
277:
268:
264:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
236:no real power
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
222:
217:
216:
215:
214:
211:
209:
200:
199:
192:
188:
183:
179:
175:
174:ultimate plea
171:
167:
163:
162:
161:
160:
157:
146:
137:
136:
132:
128:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
101:
100:
97:
93:
89:
80:
65:
62:
61:
44:
39:
34:
29:
24:
19:
1982:, but other
1971:
1963:edit summary
1954:
1947:
1942:
1941:
1930:The article
1929:
1880:
1853:
1828:
1819:
1792:
1780:
1751:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1728:
1706:
1662:
1631:
1627:
1604:
1596:(uninvolved)
1595:
1547:
1542:
1501:
1489:
1484:
1419:
1414:
1382:
1378:
1362:
1358:
1347:
1335:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1307:
1303:
1275:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1225:
1184:
1180:
1175:
1170:
1169:
1151:
1119:
1099:
1095:
1059:
1047:
1043:
1035:
1023:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1006:
1002:
999:boot-to-face
998:
990:
986:
980:
976:
972:
952:
948:
945:
940:
937:
917:
909:
686:
590:
531:
528:situation.--
481:
476:
467:
455:
449:
445:
439:
434:
430:
408:
399:
382:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:indefinitely
346:
338:
334:
278:
266:
262:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
210:
197:
196:
194:
190:
186:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
152:
144:
131:
126:
115:
109:
87:
83:
79:
63:
59:
58:
22:
1762:regentspark
1710:regentspark
1632:authorities
1455:regentspark
1424:regentspark
1338:" - I see.
628:regentspark
594:regentspark
359:megalomania
355:even though
240:fundamental
2017:Categories
1330:hypothesis
1326:prediction
1252:victimized
1248:subjugated
683:Suggestion
244:you admins
182:indefinite
1996:consensus
1934:has been
1857:ƬheStrike
1832:ƬheStrike
1781:pleeeease
1490:sincerely
1256:oppressed
991:necessary
267:depresses
166:thank you
43:Barnstars
2001:kashmīrī
1900:Paul_012
1628:due care
1605:does not
1557:BWilkins
1548:de facto
1415:Comment:
1073:WP:A/R/A
1003:punitive
790:BWilkins
657:BWilkins
576:Irondome
490:BWilkins
440:somebody
417:BWilkins
367:anything
363:position
335:Facepalm
193:mildly.
187:same way
127:COMMENTS
28:Archives
18:About me
1739:dislike
1715:comment
1652:Spartaz
1609:WP:BASC
1586:Spartaz
1460:comment
1429:comment
1254:, even
1215:Spartaz
1120:Comment
1086:unblock
912:WP:BASC
865:Spartaz
825:Spartaz
725:Shirt58
644:Spartaz
633:comment
616:Spartaz
599:comment
560:Spartaz
516:Spartaz
339:forward
318:Spartaz
289:Spartaz
221:Spartaz
156:Spartaz
1965:or on
1731:racial
1543:people
1244:racial
1227:Salvio
1153:wrote.
1048:misuse
1007:regret
739:Sitush
704:Sitush
544:cntrb.
371:headed
238:, the
198:please
88:Monday
86:Date:
38:Photos
33:Essays
1862:Σagle
1837:Σagle
1663:after
1264:again
1260:irate
981:major
477:agree
456:again
351:alone
170:loath
1904:talk
1888:MSRV
1771:talk
1686:talk
1672:talk
1666:out.
1640:talk
1617:talk
1575:talk
1524:talk
1386:Talk
1366:Talk
1308:word
1205:talk
1188:Talk
1161:talk
1142:talk
1128:talk
1103:Talk
1024:wiki
975:" —
956:Talk
892:talk
886:No.
878:talk
855:talk
812:talk
776:talk
768:here
758:talk
743:talk
729:talk
708:talk
693:talk
580:talk
572:Q.C.
539:tlk.
450:very
435:fool
313:BASC
309:UTRS
269:me.
256:your
191:very
178:this
23:Talk
1916:of
1735:not
1485:may
1328:or
1176:not
482:you
311:or
263:not
248:you
92:UTC
2019::
1969:.
1952:.
1906:)
1786:Mr
1773:)
1745:Mr
1688:)
1674:)
1642:)
1619:)
1577:)
1563:)
1561:←✎
1553:✉→
1526:)
1516:is
1495:Mr
1379:NW
1359:NW
1341:Mr
1332:.
1310:?
1269:Mr
1266:.
1250:,
1207:)
1181:NW
1163:)
1144:)
1130:)
1096:NW
1089:}}
1083:{{
1053:Mr
1029:Mr
1026:?
1018:we
949:NW
894:)
880:)
857:)
814:)
796:)
794:←✎
786:✉→
778:)
770:.
760:)
745:)
731:)
710:)
695:)
663:)
661:←✎
653:✉→
582:)
496:)
494:←✎
486:✉→
461:Mr
458:.
423:)
421:←✎
413:✉→
393:Mr
376:Mr
373:.
353:"
272:Mr
204:Mr
1902:(
1789:T
1769:(
1748:T
1717:)
1713:(
1684:(
1670:(
1638:(
1615:(
1573:(
1551:(
1522:(
1498:T
1480:)
1476:(
1462:)
1458:(
1431:)
1427:(
1389:)
1383:(
1369:)
1363:(
1344:T
1334:"
1312:"
1302:"
1272:T
1238:"
1203:(
1191:)
1185:(
1159:(
1140:(
1126:(
1106:)
1100:(
1056:T
1042:"
1032:T
985:"
971:"
959:)
953:(
890:(
876:(
853:(
810:(
774:(
756:(
741:(
727:(
721:)
717:(
706:(
691:(
635:)
631:(
601:)
597:(
578:(
464:T
444:"
429:"
396:T
379:T
294:}
275:T
230:"
207:T
94:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
