User talk:AGK

Welcome! Click here to leave me a message, or you can e-mail me privately. If you post here, I will respond here; if I posted on your talk page, I will reply there. My local time is 10:14, 05 Mar 2012. Older messages are auto-archived: LXXIII • LXXII • LXXI • LXX • all

Random quote: "I prefer drawing to talking. Drawing is faster, and leaves less room for lies." —Le Corbusier (refresh)

Response to your question

I saw your question, and will try to talk through it in more detail. I've asked WTT to take a look at the current formatting of the section before I start trying to reply, though -- it changed after you posted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I will await your response at the Evidence Analysis section. Regards, AGK [•] 13:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I decided that that point may not have shown what I thought it did, so I just left a brief note explaining that. Good enough, or do you still want me to elaborate further? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion

(Cross-posted to you and Jclemens)

I thought I should let you know that I had some questions about the wording of PhilKnight's proposed motion here. Your input there might be helpful. Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll take a look now. AGK [•] 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Adam Stonegrave

A man of two names? :P. Ironholds (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my! I'll fix that immediately. I evidently chose to wrote about a very popular subject, that day... The mistake is only now being caught, some eleven months later :). AGK [•] 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy first edit day

Happy First Edit Day, AGK, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

-- œ^™ 05:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

+1, have a great day :) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 06:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both! AGK [•] 20:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please show me where.

I thought I read all the applicable WP policies, can you please show me where it says I cannot add to a banned user's talk page? -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy's at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#User pages. AGK, is this an official ArbCom action, or are you acting as an individual editor in this regard? 28bytes (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy on that page states that a banned editor cannot change his page. I am not banned, and I am not working as an agent for Will_Beback either. I did not remove, edit, or alter, the ban banner -- Maelefique^(talk) 17:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, related discussion here. 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My objection was to the use of a barnstar gallery, which wasn't Will's userpage, and doesn't seem to have been added by Will immediately before his ban. If you want to retain a userpage in addition to the banned template, then it ought to be Will's preferred version. Maelefique, your edit created a userpage that is reminiscent of a shrine, which strikes me as completely odd. In the BRD cycle, I'm the "R" and you're the "D", so please undo your reversion. AGK [•] 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My objection is to the dismissal all of the 100,000+ edits of WBb's, as well as all the other good he has done for WP, by simply blanking his page. Do you have an objection to my reverting it back to where it was, and keeping the ban banner at the top? Otherwise, I don't see how your objection to the "shrine" should have any policy-based preference to my reminder of some of the good work he's done around here. Also, FYI, the barnstar gallery was a link from his userpage previously, that link was already there. -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisely: the link was there, but the gallery wasn't. Why is a gallery of barnstars being drafted in to sit underneath the banned template? What 'policy-based reason' is there for that? I've stated so already, but I don't object to displaying the old userpage underneath the banned template; please feel free to do so. Regards, AGK [•] 20:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I need a policy based reason to make any edit now? ok, how about BRD? Not a policy you say? how about WP:OWN? It starts off with "No one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia (bolding is my own). If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so." That's a policy. Given the flap going on at all those other discussion pages right now, do you see any reason I should wait before touching that page again? If I put back the page, with the banner at the top, then I actually have reverted an official admin action, haven't I, and isn't that prohibited somewhere by a real policy? -- Maelefique^(talk) 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique: AGK is being reasonable and offering to compromise, so let's not escalate the rhetoric. Anyway, there's no hurry: another admin has protected the page at your version so there's plenty of time to discuss changes if needed. 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have already said, in the BRD cycle, you were the Bold, I was the Revert, and you are the Discuss. AGK [•] 22:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Uhhh.... someone just locked the page. I can't edit it anyway now...

12:43, February 27, 2012‎ Guerillero (talk | contribs)‎ m (8,536 bytes) (Changed protection level of User:Will Beback: There is no reason that this page would need to be changed. In addition this page is under contention at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinit)

-- Maelefique^(talk) 20:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can do about that. You should take up the issue with the administrator who protected his userpage, if you want to pursue the issue. Otherwise, I'm going to remove the barnstar sections later, because they're completely unnecessary. When I do so, I'll replace the gallery with the newest version of Will's userpage, because that seems to be the accepted practice with long-term editors who are banned. Regards, AGK [•] 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The barnstars are pretty harmless, and the "crushed under the wheel of justice" business is gone; probably best just to leave it be, don't you think? 28bytes (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

AGK, I would ask that you refrain from changing the page at the moment for a few reasons. Firstly, there is a fair amount of discussion still going on about it, and some of it contains support for leaving the barnstars up. Secondly, there has been much more "content" on this discussion than had occurred to me when I made the original change, and has given me more to think about as well. Thirdly, at the moment, with the discussions ongoing, there would be no consensus for you removing my edits for a second time. And finally, I already mentioned above that I would be ok with reverting my own edits to the page, although I would now like to wait and see where all these conversations go first, and there's a strong possiblibity that some uninvolved editor/admin will make the change for us anyway. Thanks for reading. -- Maelefique^(talk) 23:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please close the Workshop page, since the revised deadline has passed

AGK, it is distressing to me that this ArbCom Workshop page is still open. No one wants to suppress free discussion; but a new and irregular posting has now been made, interrupting my life yet again to answer it. I have conformed to all procedural requirements the best way I can, and it is unfair that others are permitted to take advantage of that (perhaps hoping to get the last word, I suppose).

Please close and protect the page now, since your revised deadline has long passed. Anyone can carry on discussion at the talkpages for the case, if they really must.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 20:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your assessment of the latest workshop submissions (and with my explicit disagreement with the notion that you aren't required to participate after the workshop phase ends), I have protected the case Workshop page. Regards, AGK [•] 22:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

AGK, I can only go by what clerks and Arbitrators say about what will happen, so please excuse me if I appear to want to be difficult. I do not. You wrote this, at the talkpage for the Workshop:

"The Workshop will now end on 26 February 2012. When the workshop phase closes, the page will be protected in the same way as the Evidence phase has already been."

It is burdensome for parties to watch for variations to that, or for opportunistic late posts. I was forced to drop what I urgently had to do in real life and respond to a detailed late submission – one that appeared, so far as I understand them, to flout the rules that ArbCom had established for evidence. I attempted a later reply to a response to my own necessarily late reply, but then the page was protected, before I could post it.

I have now posted that reply at the talkpage for the Workshop, after your notice and Born2cycle's appeal about his late submission. I request that it be left there (not moved to the Workshop page), but duly drawn to the attention of all Arbitrators, in these circumstances that some might consider prejudicial to fairness.

Thank you!

Noetica^Tea? 23:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

An idea I should have thought up years ago :D Please accept and take care of this kitten. He is a easy to please, comforting, and quiet kitten. Only thing he might mess up is the Arbitration papers all over the table :P Otherwise, nice and cuddly.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer dogs, but he'll make a lovely pet for the study. Thank you, and I'm glad you liked the editnotice :). AGK [•] 11:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle

AGK, since your last communication with User:Mistress Selina Kyle, she has not made any edits to Wikipedia. This seems out of character with her prior editing history, though not out of the realm of possibility. Can you please confirm that neither ArbCom nor any arbitrators have given Mistress Selina Kyle instructions or weighted advice, officially or unofficially, that would lead her to believe that she does not have the ability to participate in this project? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If Selina is not currently editing, it is surely because of personal reasons. The committee nor its members have not instructed Selina to do anything, and we certainly have not (nor will we ever) pressure an editor to stop editing without being clear to the community that we are doing so. It's rather ridiculous to expect that we have done so, though I do see why the timing of our communication and her apparent-hiatus is rather unfortunate. AGK [•] 11:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I simply asked a question, there was no 'expectation' in the question. Thanks for your prompt response. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course - and I suppose I have a very different perspective from one who looks at the situation from the outside. You're very welcome. AGK [•] 11:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Had to say I noticed that edit summary ...

<cough> ... other than that? .. no comment. :) — Ched :  ?  19:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps confusing does not quite cover it :). AGK [•] 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But at least it's "civil" :) (ahhhh .. you guys do well - tough job, long hours, and not exactly the best pay around - unless one enjoys being told how wrong they are I guess) — Ched :  ?  22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Inquire

This is an alternate account of User:Pass a Method. I created this account because i had an IP stalker on me previous account who kept reverting me on sex-related articles. Two admins here advised me to tell Arbcom first so thats why i told you. Easeadds (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So is it okay if i use this second account? Easeadds (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot authorise alternative accounts in my individual capacity. Please contact the whole committee to ask permission; the usual method is by e-mail to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. AGK [•] 22:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)