Archives

Archive 1 (Jan 2006-Oct 2007) Archive 2 (Oct 2007-Dec 2007) Archive 3 (Dec 2007-Feb 2008) Archive 4 (Feb 2008-May 2008) Archive 5 (May 2008-Sep 2008) Archive 6 (Sep 2008-Dec 2008) Archive 7 (Dec 2008-Apr 2009) Archive 8 (Apr 2009-May 2009) Archive 9 (May 2009-Sep 2009) Archive 10 (Sep 2009-Jan 2010) Archive 11 (Jan 2010-Mar 2010) Archive 12 (Mar 2010-Jul 2010) Archive 13 (Jul 2010-Dec 2010) Archive 14 (Dec 2010-April 2011) Archive 15 (April 2011-Oct 2011) Archive 16 (Oct 2011-Present)

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hallo Henrik, what the matter that the views to articles in Wikipedia on July 12 and 13 are not countet? Kindest regards -- 80.144.249.207 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2011 (Lothar Spurzem)

Hi! I'm Nicolai from the Faroese Wikipedia. I just found the website http://stats.grok.se/ with statistics over visited Wikipedia-articles on several Wikis. How come the Faroese Wikipedia isn't included, and what can I do to include it? Niceley) 01:08 PM July 28th 2011

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 2894 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

hello,

how do you revert to the old-style grok.se? Thanks. ♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 11:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)} [reply]

You go to http://stats-classic.grok.se henrik•talk 21:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Thanks!--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 13:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

I think a good solution would be to add "60 day" and "90 day" links on the "stats-classic" display. These links would display the new format, showing those numbers of days. This approach would allow those of us who want mainly us to older, clearer display to do so, while still providing access to the great new feature of multi-month displays. Also, this would be easy for Henrik to accomplish, just by adding the links. (In the multi-month displays I am more intersted in a general impression, so the new layout is OK for that, but in the 30-day display I am more interested in the actual daily numbers.) Coastwise (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although on the face of it, the new style is more attractive, the old one is easier to read, by far. The gray bar against the white is harder to "read" than the colored one against a gray background, plus there is no longer an immediate grasp of the information because you now have to mouse over every single bar—some of which, if you have a really great disparity between days, (such as one day with 35,000 and the rest with 10 to 200) the smaller bars are nearly impossible to detect because there are no numbers to indicate their presence. In addition, before, you could quickly find any given day of the month; now you only get groupings by week. It is, as others have said, nice to be able to click through the 30-60-90 versions, but because I prefer the old information, with its ease of use, I use the "classic" version rather than the new one. Thanks for your work on this in any case. Marrante (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I add my opinion that the old style was more attractive and more ergonomic? It was easier to see the numbers at a glance when they were simply printed there. Now one has to mouse over each graph bar to see the statistic, which is a dreadful pain in the arse. I do not want to discourage improvements or useful changes, but I feel this change is a disimprovement. Is there any possibility of reverting to the old style? Sorry to be negative, but that's how I feel. At least I can thank you for the statistics tool, which is useful and which I appreciate. — O'Dea (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Out of curiosit, what do you think of this style http://pageviews.wmflabs.org/en/201201/Britney_Spears ?

I prefer the bars to the line graph, and prefer numbers to show above the bars by default to avoid the need to drag on the touchpad to click on the toggle link option. — O'Dea (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Printing number for each bar would be good, but it doesn't work well for longer time ranges. henrik•talk 21:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, it seems to work okay for volatile numbers too. However, it doesn't degrade gracefully when there isn't enough data - http://pageviews.wmflabs.org/en/latest90/Toddler_bed only has around five weeks of data, claims to plot for 90 days, but only plots the five weeks of data (there ought to be a big section of zeros). Josh Parris 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The line chart does show the trend well, but frankly, when I go to the statistics tool, what I'm looking for are numbers, first and foremost, and generally of the previous day or days, so the first version is still my preferred one because that's exactly what I get and I get it immediately. The 30-60-90 ability is nice, but for me, secondary. With the first tool, you had the date and the page count right at hand. The line graph is easier to read because of the contrast (blue against white "reads" better than gray), but you still have to mouse over and then you have to look in the corner for the numbers, again, doable, functional, but still not preferable. For me, the best solution would be to have the 30-day chart in essentially the style it had first been, with an option to click to a line chart to review trends over longer periods. Is that a nuisance to create? Marrante (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I assume that you're primarily interested in summing up the views for the one or two days on which a T:DYK entry appears, would that be a fair assumption? It's a perfectly valid use case, I'll think of how to solve it. henrik•talk 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a primary interest, but not exclusive. I do like seeing what an article appears to be getting as "normal traffic", also, a few articles that I've worked on have suddenly become newsworthy and have experienced surges as a result, so these are interesting to view, as well. The surges sometimes are days long, sometimes weeks. In one case, an article I had just improved became a Google doodle in Germany, so I was very glad that it's so easy to check other WP projects. Thank you! I would say that if you were to create a special DYK tool, you should keep in mind that authors may like to see the spikes that occur while the article is actively being expanded and this can last several days, plus some articles linger in the review process, taking weeks till they are finally promoted to the queue. I don't know if this means a special DYK tool is a good idea or that a button or link to the old chart is all that's needed. I routinely now click on "Page view statistics" and then just type "classic" in the URL if I need to see more. It's a very easy, if inelegant way of solving my problem. I do think, however, that the pop-up displays of numbers need to be easier to read because when they appear over one or more bars, you have a problem, a translucent field with light numbers. It doesn't matter how you fix it really, but it's very hard (and sometimes impossible) to read anything over a "textured" or high-contrast background. Thanks for all your work here! Marrante (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone mentioned yet that the number of views and the dates cannot be accurately determined for those using mobile devices? (mouse over does not work) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik, I just wanted to get back to you and say that the toggle switch is a great improvement on the new charts. I still find the gray numbers a little hard to read when they appear over the horizontal graph, but otherwise, the new chart is now workable in the way the old one was, giving you that immediate sense of the traffic, not just pictorially, but in actual numbers. I assume this also solves the problems with the mobile devices. I had noticed the mouse-over did not work, but had not yet noticed the toggle switch, so I'll try that next time I'm on one. Thanks again for all your work here! —Marrante (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have seen that you are the creator of http://stats.grok.se/ and I wonder if it is closed? It has not worked for months and I thought that it was a good tool to see how many views each page had. If it is closed: Do you know anything similar to that tool? - Green Yoshi _{talk page · contributions} 13:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Apart from a brief snafu tonight, it's up and running. If something doesn't work, please let me know about it. henrik•talk 07:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, if it works for you. Nothing happens for me in any web browser and after a while I get the message "Anslutningen avbröts. Servern på stats.grok.se svarar inte." (I don't think I need to translate it into English for you) in Firefox and similar messages in other browsers. It has been like that since spring last year (I think). - Green Yoshi _{talk page · contributions} 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried it from a different location? It seems like some sort of network issue. Which ISP do you use? henrik•talk 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was interesting; it works on my mobile phone with Telenor. On my computer, I use a mobile broadband, also from Telenor. - Green Yoshi _{talk page · contributions} 15:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the problem is? - Green Yoshi _{talk page · contributions} 17:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you have noticed but User:Henrik/live-edit-counter is no longer working... When you click on the link it tells you that the user account has expired. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should work now. -- œ^™ 09:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Hah! I'd completely forgotten about that user box, I'm glad people have kept it working :) henrik•talk 09:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to go here and got "Internal Server Error. The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@localhost and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log." Which I'm speculating means that something happened in your PHP. I'm not sure if this is something on my end or yours or some kind of random fluke, but I just wanted to alert you to it. Good luck, Jessemv (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The classic version still works, fwiw. Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. Hmm. Jessemv (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a configuration error on my part (Hm. I could have sworn it worked when I tested it). How is it now? henrik•talk 07:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works now! Jessemv (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henrik,

I am a student and working on a project of indexing wikipedia. We needed some parameters to improve the indexing scheme, and we found 'access' frequency of wiki articles as a useful stat to boost relevance.

So, I started using http://stats.grok.se/ for the access history / page. But, since a while ago I'm getting following message instead of the data:

"Too many requests, please limit your service to 1-2 requests per second and contact User:Henrik on wikipedia to be unblockeddkagarwa@datalab-6 11:51:37 /extra/dkagarwa0/wiki/stat"

Is there any simpler way to just "get the access count for all the english wikipedia pages since last february".

- The data in http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/ is humongous for my needs.
- http://toolserver.org/~emw/wikistats/ is way too slow and does not return results for many pages.

Hence, I was using my own script to do it, but seems like your servers are not happy.

Please help out. I just want the access count dump for an year for en.wikipedia.org.

Thanks,

Optimistdk (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were hammering my server (in singular) from multiple computers, to the point where other users of the service were starting to suffer. If you do no more than one request sequentially with a small pause in between, I'll be happy to remove the block, but I think for your needs http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/ would be a better choice. You do realize you're trying to access roughly 1.5 billion points of data; over 48 million requests if you get data for one month per request? henrik•talk 07:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I had thought the rate limiting was like 2 request/ip, so i was doing it in distributed way. I have stopped my script yesterday and would not do that now. ( but still imho, 2/min is way too slow to get anything substantial ). Yes, I am aware that there are around 4m articles in wikipedia. But, i want to access the counts for one year(in lumpsum, so only 4m dps). I was doing it monthly basis because thats the best aggregation it gives ( api like http://stats.grok.se/json/en/2011/apple give 404). I wonder why it calculates the aggregate sum for every request every time( access till yesterday is a constant value, so very month count can be stored statically ). Hourly granularity seems way too much. http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/2011/. I had tried raw but you see the size of every months data is 44.6g ! For a year that would be 535g ! I just need english wiki 1 yr access counts, so should be able to get that in merely 500mb file (<page> <year_count_so_far>). Could you provide such yearly count dump or suggest best way to do it. Thanks. Optimistdk (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henrik! Is there any chance you could email me the source text of the deleted page "Map of the Past", please? Thanks! woody_marx@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space Rodeo (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post it here instead. henrik•talk 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon Color with redirecting Silicon Color to itself. Are you sure it is exactly what you wanted to do? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I swear, those two boxes are like right next to each other. henrik•talk 21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I request you to take a look at the doon school template discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:The_Doon_School) which has been lingering on for days. I have tried to do best in my capacity. I consider your advice extremely important in this matter. Many thanks! [[User:Merlaysamuel|Merlaysamuel]] (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests run for a week, after that an administrator who hasn't participated in the discussion will close the request and evaluate the outcome. henrik•talk 20:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks :) [[User:Merlaysamuel|Merlaysamuel]] (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Henrik. In this edit I commented out the instructions for reaching yearly data because it leads to a 404 error. Is this 404 error a feature or a bug? Killiondude (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old yearly data view was more or less an unintentional feature, it happened to work through a quirk in the code. I'm working towards expanding the range that can be viewed, to more than 90 days, but I need to improve performance first. So I guess somewhere in between a feature and a bug. :) henrik•talk 16:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Joseph_Kony shows 4,269,692 views in the last 30 days, however it shows no ranking. The article for Facebook shows 2,863,949 views for the same period and says "This article ranked 12 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org". Just curious to find out how often the rankings are updated? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see how the traffic Joseph Kony has been peaking of late (most likely due to the Invisible Children videos just put on YouTube) but on the current screen you can only see the number of views for the last three days. Past view info is available, but my point is that if traffic spikes, the other bars aren't tall enough to show the actual values. You have to hover your mouse over the bar to show the value, and the bars representing 300-400 views are dwarfed by bars representing 2 million views, its impossible to see the actual value. This wasn't a problem in your older version. Jesse V. (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The top rating is run (manually) like once a year by Henrik. I'm sure it takes a lot of resources to do that.
@Jessemv, this was indeed a similar issue in the older version. Nostalgia makes one forget, sometimes. :) Killiondude (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, see how the older version has view counts at the bottom of the graph? Note the difference with the new version, which doesn't display said values unless you can hover your mouse over the bar. Since the bar is not even a pixel tall, getting the view count is impossible in the new version. That was my point. Jesse V. (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I generally use the classic version so my mind was more thinking about the visual bar. Killiondude (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope everyone remembers that hovering is not available(?) on mobile devices? Ottawahitech (talk)

• Thanks for letting us know that the ranking is calculated manually, Killiondude. If it is indeed calculated only once a year, ahouldn't it say so?

I'm almost afraid to butt in into the discussion ;) You can click the 'show labels' link on the bottom right, and it will show numbers for each day. Not quite as nicely formatted as the old version yet.

The problem with the top list, as Killiondude has said, is that updating it has involved a lot of manual work so it's only been done very infrequently. I'm trying to get that fixed though. henrik•talk 15:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see these threads. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisinart was only edited four times last year, it has seven sentences, 1.7 KB, 2 refs, 2 ELs, a photo, and a navbox. How can it possibly get a million hits per month?

It's not consistent with the 5 AFT reviews the article's received. Josh Parris 13:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in the hourly squid log data, so I also asked at User talk:Midom#Cuisinart statistics seem wrong and pinged Domas on IRC. Npmay (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to have fun rapidly reloading that page for whatever reason (a good use of the Foundation's limited hardware budget). There's no way to filter out this in the aggregated data which is published in the dumps. You could do it at the source, but it'd be pretty resource intensive. henrik•talk 14:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started a new article the day before yesterday and often check the traffic on those early days. Yesterday, it said something like 20 or 40. Today, that bar is gone and instead, I get three non-consecutive days with one hit each. Strange, eh? The article is Heinz Pehlke. Thanks! —Marrante (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stats service is currently recovering from a hardware hickup, I'm waiting for a raid sync to finish before processing new data. Check again in a day or two! henrik•talk 14:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henrik. I notice that as a result of this deletion discussion, you recently deleted Wheel doughnut. Would it be appropriate to also delete the redirect, Wheel Doughnut? Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Someone else already deleted it. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://stats.grok.se/id/top not updated anymore? William Surya Permana (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi! what happens now:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_2#Template:The_Doon_School ?? :: Merlaysamuel :: (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henrik. When we had what you referred to a hiccup a couple of weeks ago, did we lose a month of stats? Check any page, like the WP main page, and the entire month of February seems to have disappeared from the stats. Maile66 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. No, it was a compaction job gone wrong. Should be fixed now, thanks for letting me know :) henrik•talk 15:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have magic fingers.Maile66 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the new features in the stat's I have to tell ya, the graphics leave much to be desired. Lose that shadow effect. Tacky. That went out with ascii graphics and obscures the graph detail. Some color would be nice. The graphic format used before was much better. Can't we use it with the new features? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was a little surprised that you closed the discussion as delete rather than no consensus. Would you mind taking a second look at the discussion and/or clarifying your position? I think a lot of the coverage goes well beyond that which you would expect for any game. For example: [1] and [2] would clearly not have been written if not for the fact that the two brothers were facing off. Also, the way that the sources talk about the games (for example "To most of the football world, Peyton vs. Eli, The Rematch, is one of this season's feature attractions.", "the much-hyped battle of the brothers", "much-hyped original “Manning Bowl,”", "becoming the first siblings in N.F.L. history to start as opposing quarterbacks") seems to me to be pretty solid indicators of notability. Cheers / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was very, very close to a no consensus close (it was a border-line case, which was a few days overdue for close, so I imagine others have looked at it as well). The keeps mainly argued that it had received sufficient coverage, the deletes argued that while there was coverage, it didn't meet the thresholds for lasting effects and duration of coverage. In the end i felt the latter argument was (slightly) more persuasive and along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbaugh Bowl, enough to push it into the delete column. Barely. henrik•talk 14:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Is it possible to add more languages to http://stats.grok.se ? I am particularly curious about Punjabi (language code pa), but it would be useful to have all of them.

Thank you. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for all languages exist, but they're not all selectable in the user interface to make it less unwieldy. But if you change the url to point to the right language code, you can see the result for every Wikipedia project. Example: http://stats.grok.se/pa/latest/ਮੁੱਖ_ਪੰਨਾ henrik•talk 15:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you commented at the AE request, in light of User:Timotheus Canens comments there, please see the discussion here [3] (related to my comment here [4]).VolunteerMarek 16:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You noted in the AE that I reverted an Arb. As per User_talk:Xeno#ARBCOM_endorsed_removal.3F, he states that he was acting only as another editor, not in his Arb role.

Also, please read my statement, which I have now posted. Your suggestion of a 6 month ban is especially over the top, given that I have further evidence to post once I have finished dealing with the homophobic attacks on myself. There is no rush at AE -- as the NKR discussion demonstrates.

Also, you might like to take a look at the satirical version of my AE request at User:Russavia/PolandballAE -- you don't take the Sveaball jokes offensive do you? Or do you? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 13:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I didn't think he acted in an official capacity either, but perhaps that was unclear. I meant it as a shorthand as a respected user, with generally proven good judgment, but I can see that it could be interpreted that way.

I agree that there is no rush at AE, I'm happy to await consensus to develop. I would rather wait a few days extra than imposing something indecorous or not allow you a full chance to make your reasoning clear.

No, I don't find Sveaball to particularly offensive :) But you and I don't have a history that would make me to think you're deliberately trying to get under my skin. If someone with long standing conflicts with, for example, red haired editors and is under interaction restrictions with said red haired editors prominently posts a cartoon that depicts red headed editors as vandals sitting on a toilet sprouting feces, "it's only humor" sounds a bit thin, don't you think? My first preference would be for that editor to come to an understanding with those he had conflicts with, to understand each others viewpoints and find common ground. My second preference, should that prove impossible, would be for those editors to ignore each other and not let the conflict flare up. My third, and by far, distant choice is to remove those editors who can not do that from the discussion. henrik•talk 20:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik, I have made it a point to stay away from these editors -- I don't check their contributions, I don't watch their talkpages, I don't get involved their disputes (which even without me, they get into -- read Malick78's comments for example). I do my own thing on WP -- in the words of Lothar -- to be frank, I DGAF (don't give a f') what they do in their editing. In the words of Marek, I stay the f' away from them. Please read my statement in full, don't waiting for anything further -- if anything else, you will only see more posts from editors from Wikipediareview/Wikipediaforum with a grudge against myself (read my statement please) -- many of the people on the AfD are members of these forums. I am disengaging as of now, I am no longer taking the bait that these people throw out, because I have too much predictability (to quote Marek) -- we all know that, and the fuckhead that I am, I take it -- giving people the ammunition to use against me. I'm my own worst enemy sometimes I guess. There are only two people in that entire "discussion" who are not actually involved with me -- Malick78 (although I have had words with him over civility in the past) and Skapperod. Both of these editors comments are also worth reading.

Everything in my statement is sincere and accurate (especially relating to the userpage). I acknowledge I was wrong to have reverted Marek, and I am not going to wikilawyer or try to change IBAN policy in the midst of discussion or rally the troops to come and defend me. I know I would be better off doing the latter, but I am an honest editor. People say don't admit fault, because it makes you appear weak -- I say f' that, admit when you're wrong, and cop it on the chin like a man.

I have posted to EdJohnston's talk page, and he has agreed to allow me to report to him of any future interaction ban breaches, which means I won't be baited into reverting, and it keeps the drama off AE. That is a good solution.

I have asked T. Canens to go ahead and implement any block. I am happy for you to go ahead over his head, and block me for whatever period you like, and for you to shut down the AE request with no action against any other editor (even though you have stated yourself they have breached their bans). If you think T. Canens suggested 2 week block is fine, go ahead. If you want to block me for a year, go ahead. The latter might be a good choice, if you want to see the off-wiki lulz afterwards.

All that I ask is that you put everything you thought previously out of your head, read my statements at AE and assume nothing but good faith on my part, and you do what you think is fair.

I am going offline for a day, so when I come back, I will be expecting to be blocked by either yourself or T. Canens.

Thanks, Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 21:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Most of my 7 blocks are what T. Canens has called "EEML tainted". Whether you take into that account or not, it is totally up to you. Just do what is fair is all I ask.