User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:20, 30 May 2011

Tools

Admin statistics
Action	Count
Edits	43925
Edits+Deleted	54362
Pages deleted	3031
Revisions deleted	71
Logs/Events deleted	2
Pages restored	270
Pages protected	4173
Pages unprotected	103
Protections modified	3658
Users blocked	2348
Users reblocked	155
Users unblocked	158
User rights modified	119
Users created	59
Abuse filters modified	89
Mass messages sent	4

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
The Mediation Committee has been disbanded as a result of this discussion.
Other dispute resolution processes should be used for content issues.

Shortcuts

The Mediation Committee was a panel of editors who resolved content disputes on Wikipedia articles by providing formal mediation. The Mediation Committee was established with the Arbitration Committee in 2003 by Jimmy Wales and was the last stage of content dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. Mediation was entered into voluntarily by the parties to the dispute and did not result in binding resolutions. The Mediation Committee policy documented how the Mediation Committee, its mediators, and the formal mediation process operated. This policy was maintained by the Committee and was considered an authoritative codification of how Committee matters should be conducted.

After a substantial period of inactivity, the Mediation Committee was shut down by community consensus on 12 November 2018.

Hi there

Hey Anthony, it's been a long time. How have you been? I'm returning to active editing nowadays :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve! I'm very glad to see that you've returned. I had actually noticed an edit by you a couple of weeks back, but weren't sure if you were returning "full-time". Are you enjoying your return? AGK [•] 10:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pretty good, I now have a little month old daughter, and a new office job that gives me about 2-3hrs free time in an 8 hour day, so I have more free time to edit. That said, I've come back, and a lot has changed (seriously what did they do with all the edit buttons at the top of the edit window? I'm a bit lost in terms of what to do on wiki again. Any ideas? You remember what I used to like doing...well, it hasn't changed, but some stuff I used to do doesn't exist nowadays, or has changed. Thoughts? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the wean! The aimlessness you feel on Wikipedia is common in editors who return after many months in retirement, so I wouldn't fret. I remember that you were quite active at the Mediation Cabal, and that your mediation cases were often successful. Perhaps you could return there. You also created many articles related to 24 (TV series), so perhaps you could return to that, or become an editor or copy-editor for a WikiProject of some other interest of yours. As a matter of experience, editors thrive when they find a niche, so if you have lost yours, the problem might simply be that you haven't found another. AGK [•] 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on 24 (TV series) for the past few days, but have somewhat hit the wall in parts in terms of how to improve it from where it is to could become. In terms of MedCab, I'd love to take on a case again, but there a lack of anything to mediate at present, which is quite a shame. Any suggestions on what I could do in DR, apart from third opinions, which I have already worked on a few, but disputes are few and far between. Getting a bit stuck with stuff to do, to be honest. Just fyi, I was wondering when you'd be made chair of MedCom. It's about time. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of cases at MedCab is not surprising; things are quiet on the DR front generally, including at MedCab. You could always chime in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution, as you've got experience that could lead to useful insight. And maybe, if that RFC solves some of the problems that plague our DR system, there might be plenty more cases to take on in future :). Oddly enough, I was appointed the Chair of MedCom one year and one month today :). AGK [•] 22:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that. I think I might leave my comments there, as I have noticed of late the disputes are more scattered across a larger number of pages. And personally, I felt 3O, MedCab and MedCom for content disputes worked fine. I will leave my opinion there. On another note, I've finally got my head around what I need to do around here. Having it on paper definitely helps :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think this case would be too hard for me? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally left my comments at RFC/DR, if you're interested. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could just be bold and write up a new page, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution notice board as a proposed page? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Hello AGK. Earlier you said you were interested in discussing a modification to my topic ban. I am just checking to see if you have given that any further thought. nableezy - 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Interim reply) I will respond soon to this and to the other outstanding talk page threads and e-mails. IRL is busy today. AGK [•] 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on your talk page presently. AGK [•] 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands‎

I have withdrawn this request for mediation. It has become clear that no amount of negotiating will be able to solve this dispute–at least, not without ArbCom involvement. – AJL^talk 23:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the mediation talk page. AGK [•] 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

email

{{you've got mail}}--Mbz1 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. AGK [•] 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One second blocks

The user block log is not to used for making notations or recording opinions about other administrators blocks. Please refrain from doing that again, as you did here. This can get out of hand if every administrator wants to weigh in on what they think about a block. If a block was erroneous, please contact the blocking administrator and ask them to place the notation. This way the matter is clarified, rather muddied by having multiple administrators placing contradictory information into the block log. Jehochman ^Talk 10:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hidden part in all this. Oversight was requested on those two blocks, which I declined because log redaction can only be done in very specific circumstances. It was my idea for Mbz1 to ask AGK to make a note in the block log, as I have seen done on many occasions to correct errors. Mbz1's block log is already a mess (I made my own mistaken block of him some time ago). The problem at this point is that the "sanctions" supposedly put in place at the time of the unblocking are still being used to limit Mbz1 despite the fact that a full six months has passed since they were imposed, valid or not. It was my understanding that the notation in the log would be to clarify that there is no longer any such restriction and that it was in dispute from the beginning. How it is worded now is not exactly how I would have handled it, but I think it gets that job done adequately. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman: Thank you for your message. I have delayed my response, to think over your remarks a little more, but my first opinion remains unchanged. First, I did not 'annotate' Mbz1 block log, contrary to what you say, because I simply disagreed with the preceding blocks. I did annotate because the blocks were resulting in recurrent mis-treatment of the editor. I have sanctioned Mbz1 in the past, including last week, so I am under no illusion as to his or her record of behaviour, and I did not undertake this action lightly. But I am also very aware that editors of contested topic areas tend to game the system, including by using block logs to increase the likelihood of their 'enemies' being re-banned. Second, I agree that it would be unseemly to have this kind of thing happen frequently, but I disagree that we must rely solely on the blocking administrator to do the annotation (or alternatively accept an impasse if he or she refuses), and I especially disagree that we must do so in this kind of context. Third, and probably most unimportantly, I object to the tone of your message, which gives the impression that you speak with the weight of policy and with the authority to instruct another administrator—when, in actuality, there is absolutely no precedent or policy on this matter. As a matter of experience, I know that you like to employ a direct tone—and that, I think, is one of your attractive qualities as a community member. But the controlling manner of your message was misguided, if not downright obnoxious. This is not as important as the actual matter of the annotation, but I figured I'd point it out anyway. I'd like to hear your thoughts on any or all of this.

Beeblebrox: Precisely. Thanks for chiming in. Regards to you both, AGK [•] 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, the block log is not the place to contest blocks or make notations about an editor. If blocks are deemed improper through a community discussion, you can make a note to correct the record, "Prior blocks were deemed improper at (link)". That would be fine. What did you was adding mud on top of mud, just making the mud deeper. Jehochman ^Talk 23:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If my block log is so muddy as Jehochman says and/or so messy as Beeblebrox says, could we please delete it altogether and start it anew :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a pressure washer would work? ;P --Tothwolf (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman: The context here is not only that I disagree with this block. To repeat, this block log is being used against Mbz1 to have him unfairly blocked, or blocked for longer than he would without his ostensibly-bad record. I concede that it would be undesirable to have this kind of thing happen commonly. I also concede that under most circumstances, a block must be formally annulled either by the blocking administrator or by community discussion, but as a practical matter it was difficult to do so here because the incidents in question are half a year old. On balance, treating an individual with fairness takes precedence over following the procedure you think is proper. Do I not have a convincing argument, and am I simply blinded by my own opinion, or do you see at least a little where I am coming from? Regards, AGK [•] 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK: maybe the block log is unfair, but from an outside point of view, why should a subsequent administrator trust your notation over that of the blocking admin? Concensus might not be expedient, but it's the way to proceed here. Please go have a chat with the blocking admin(s) to see if they would set the record straight, or if they dont agree with you, start a community discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 03:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, how exactly is one supposed to have bad blocks addressed? I have a good reason to be interested in this myself, as my own block log will show. I wrote about some of this during the WP:AESH case. [1] [2] The short version, I was blocked for 72 hours, (later changed to indef), by Sandstein for making a very valid statement when Theserialcomma was gaming ACE to attack me. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56#Tothwolf 2. I know I should probably have ArbCom review the original case due to the documented irregularities and all of the other material which came to light later, but that still doesn't address the mess in my block log. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf: In the first instance, contact the blocking administrator. Almost all of the sysops on Wikipedia are fair, reasonable individuals, and will consider a convincing argument as to why your block should be 'annulled'. Regards, AGK [•] 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I would agree with you, however I've already attempted this discussion with Sandstein. In the last email exchange with Sandstein prior to me ranting at him (which is when he changed the 72 hour block to an indef), he said (short quote only): "with respect to the offwiki aspects of this, I have absolutely zero interest in them, sorry. [...]" and "[...] I am not in a position to doubt ArbCom findings (except perhaps after hours of research for which I have no time)." Even though I think Sandstein and I are mostly "ok" at this point, [3] given the email reply and the other stuff in the WP:AESH case, I don't see that it would be beneficial to bring this up again with Sandstein.
Combined with the two links I gave above where I made statements during the AESH case, these links should probably be sufficient to show what continued to happen: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Suffice it to say, the whole experience was extremely unpleasant. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the blocking admin refuses to discuss, that is good grounds to request further review by the community for open matters, or by ArbCom for private matters. Jehochman ^Talk 03:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the same thing which led to the WP:AESH case? ArbCom received a copy of Sandstein's email although I got no response from them. ArbCom also quite likely got copies of a lot of the emails which went back and forth between a lot of people while I was indef'd for those 18 days.
Given the later material I linked to above (and some stuff I have off-line which I need to put in my userspace for later use for WP:LTA) I really would like to see ArbCom "right the wrongs" of the original case. The blocks in my block log are solely related to the harassment I'd been putting up with from User:Theserialcomma. ArbCom did this with the Matthew Hoffman case [12] yet I wasn't even able to get my case pages blanked (despite promises from ArbCom members that they would be blanked). The case itself has even been cited by people off-wiki to attack me and because it was never blanked, the case pages now show up on many sites which scrape Wikipedia pages (they don't respect {{NOINDEX}}). --Tothwolf (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Deadly weapon; University Centre Hastings; Shadow Foreign Secretary; Obscene libel; Michael Burgess (coroner); Yellow Mama; Berserk anime soundtrack; Percoll; General Council of the Judicial Power of Spain; United States Virgin Islands Supreme Court; 2002 Glasgow floods; James French (murderer); Ghat; King George V Coronation Medal; Mannarasala Temple; Robert Foucrault; Trade name; Holytown railway station; Malay (chicken)

Cleanup: Manor of Worksop; Khaled Abu Toameh; Battle of Jenin
Merge: Heritable Jurisdictions (Scotland) Act 1746; Operation Summer Rains suboperations; Judiciary of Australia
Add Sources: Tribunal d'instance; War in Afghanistan (2001–present); 2006 Lebanon War
Wikify: Authenticated Identity Body; Procedures of the Supreme Court of Canada; Pirates of the Burning Sea
Expand: Eugen Gerstenmaier; Hermann Ehlers; David Laws

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan

Dear administrator,

I am not really sure if you are in fact an administrator at AE or not, but I am posting this message anyway since I found your name among the decision-making administrators in AE cases. If it's not too much to ask, could you please review the AE case on MarshallBagramyan? The whole case is based on an imposed indefinite restriction for not labeling authors any names or dismissing them based on their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or similar general characteristic (and the report clearly said “This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions”) and violation of another topic ban earlier in 2010 when the user violated his ban twice and went unnoticed? The reported user MB has taken this report out of context by posting long blocks of replies which had already wrote last time he was reported and diverting the attention of the readers and administrator away from the subject which is an imposed ban and his violation of it. All I am asking is for administrators to take action on the violation of restriction for fair and just decision. Angel670 talk 17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to log onto AE presently, once I've done a couple of other on-wiki things. I'll take a look at the request. Regards, AGK [•] 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mad! Mad! Hihihi!

Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 20:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That's fair. I've actioned your complaint. Regards, AGK [•] 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate, little user! Hihi! [Oh noes Bishonen is going into scary Bishzilla mode! ] Bishonen | talk 11:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Diffs and archive links to declined requests

Thanks for the note about the excess verbiage at RFAR. I was about to refactor (as you suggested), but NW archived it as declined and the diff he left at the declined requests page shows everything that was said, so even if I could refactor, it doesn't seem needed now (I had nothing more to say anyway, so likely all I would have done is taken the diff you put on my talk page and put it on the request page so people would be able to see what had been removed from my statement). Anyway, I will try and keep any statements I make shorter in the future. Sorry about that! Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About half an hour after I asked you and several others to reduce the length of your statements, the arbitrators directed that the request was to be closed, so I sort of wasted my time :). Anyway, don't worry about it. I know from experience that a lot of editors have trouble keeping to the word limit. Regards, AGK [•] 11:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hihihi! FT2 wasted my sanity also! Scattered it to the winds! Bishonen | talk 11:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Are you planning to comment further on the SD case at AE?

Hello AGK. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness you left some questions for Supreme Deliciousness to answer. He answered you on 20 May. His response may be seen at Wikipedia:Ae#Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness under the heading 'Reply to AGK.' Would you like to make a proposal of what to do? I do not have any strong opinion myself, but I tend to support closing without sanctions if those presenting the arguments don't have a coherent case which is easy to follow. SD's behavior may be a bit unusual, but he would not be the first person to deserve that adjective to work on I/P articles. I also left a note for Enigmaman, the other admin who left a comment in the closing section but he is not very active these days. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I sent you a mail about an of wiki canvassing/meatpuppeting cable that have previously attempted to get me sanctioned at enforcement, I hope you have read it. I also have some further evidence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness: Replied. EdJohnston: I forgot that I had asked SD some questions. I will go look at his answers, then post a follow-up. Thanks for the reminder; I've been busy IRL. Regards, AGK [•] 11:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I sent you reply, also would like opportunity to reply to your follow up. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SD email "evidences"

Hi AGK, it is to let you know that I have good reasons to believe that SD is talking about private emails hacked from my email account in December.

Some of these emails were written by the hacker.Some of them were written by me in order to make the hacker to act on them because I knew my account was hacked at the very moment it was hacked, and Avi could confirm my words because I emailed him about the hacker, and he blocked that IP on wikipedia.

The other user user:Sol Goldstone is community banned for outing me with those stolen emails, and trying present them as "evidences".

What SD is doing now is also outing because I assume the "evidences" were sent to a few admins.Sending "the evidences" via email is even worse, because I cannot defend myself, and I have done nothing wrong.

PhilKnight said he was not going to consider evidence obtained by hacking.

My email was has hacked another time about two months ago. I emailed Alison about this, she blocked the hacker IP.

AGK, if SD has "evidences" and "further evidence" it means that somebody's else email was also hacked (mine was not) because it is the only way to get such "evidences", of course, if these "evidences" are verifiable at all,and I believe that, if the hacker cannot be caught, the users who are acting on the hacker behalf should be sanctioned. It is the only way to stop dirty business of hacking emails and presenting them as "evidences". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator is not qualified to consider serious accusations of this nature. Please take this to the Arbitration Committee, to whom the community defers all matters of a confidential nature. AGK [•] 11:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The members of ArbCom know, quite a few administrators and users know, Jimbo knows. It also was discussed on AN/I. The problem is that it keeps coming up on some users talk pages, and it is being spread via emails. Of course I understand administrators are "not qualified to consider serious accusations of this nature". My post at your talk page was done with the only purpose to warn you that, if any of SD "evidences" look as emails that were not addressed to this user, you would know how these "evidences" were obtained. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the logic of assuming that any email in the possession of SD, that is not explicitly addressed to SD, must have come into SD's possession by being "stolen" (or whatever other means you are alluding to). To take as an example, the email that you sent to me admitting that you made edits to Egypt as part of a "game" with banned user NoCal100, and that you chose Egypt because Nableezy was editing that article at the time. If SD were to have a copy of that email, that would be because you sent the email to me unsolicited, and then I published it online with your permission.

I don't know much about AE topic bans, but I suggest you might be more careful about repeatedly appearing on administrators' talk pages to comment about AE cases or SPI cases concerning articles under ARBPIA remedies, while you are topic banned. This is the second instance of that in three days, the other one being here. Maybe there are other instances that I don't know about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your name is mentioned

link. I don't want to be accused of taking your statements out of context. If you need to clarify feel free. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SD Ban

Hi AGK. In response SDs ban, I think you are doing the I/P area a great disservice if you don't actually state the specific reasons SD was given a half-year topic ban. I think the closest explanation for such a hefty ban is that he was involved in a number of "problematic incidents" -- it is missing the Who, What, When, Where and Why thing (which is kind of important). Just sayin'. -asad (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. My primary answer would be that I largely agree with the statements by the party who filed the request; I thought that was a given, so sorry for not making that clear. My secondary answer is that I think it is better if I don't list specific incidents that led me to conclude that SD needed to be topic-banned. He was topic banned because of the sum of his edits and his general influence on the topic area, so listing diffs would he time-consuming, unnecessary (the discretionary sanctions remedy doesn't require an explanation to be given), and counter-productive (because it might lead to people tweaking their behaviour to ostensibly not deserve a topic ban).

I am not doing a disservice to the topic area inasmuch as they presumably know very well how this community expects its contributors to behave. Regards, AGK [•] 01:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, when I woke up a short while ago, the password to my Gmail account no longer worked. Gmail had to text me an access code to my cell phone. It does not appear as though any of my stored messages were tampered with, or that any messages were sent out from the account overnight, so I don't exactly know what conclusion to draw from this – but the coincidence is too striking for me to dismiss as pure happenstance and it's a disconcerting feeling. What am I supposed to do about this?—Biosketch (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last message, it has happened again. It appears that, while no one was able to actually obtain access to my Gmail account, attempts to do so are being undertaken even as I write this.—Biosketch (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail password not working

The concern is understandable, but it's actually much more likely that this is just part of a program that Google has been undertaking for quite some time to link freely created online accounts with personal data like contact details (which is far more valuable from a commercial point of view). The "please link your account"/"please verify your account" program has been rolled out gradually, affecting a variety of other Google services as well as Gmail, and people who operate multiple separate Google accounts for privacy reasons, and want to keep them separate, have been very annoyed by it.

It starts innocently enough, by requesting you link accounts on services operated by Google with a "Google account" which can even be an email address from another provider; then it pauses a few weeks and requests you "verify" your Google account by giving them a cellphone number to link it with; if you skip this step or decline it, it appears to accept that, but then a few weeks later again, it kicks you out of your account (as happened to you) until you give them a number.

As well as being gradual by taking this multi-step approach, their approach is even more subtle in that it's also staggered by only working on subsets of accounts at any one time, so that any individual user who might complain to more tech-savvy friends about it, will likely be ignored because the friends have not yet experienced the exact same issue themselves, and thus assume the less tech-savvy user has messed up their account somehow (or indeed "been hacked"). It becomes more obvious when you run several Gmail/Google accounts and can observe the demands creeping across them.

Of course, there are advantages of this program in reducing the ease with which Gmail and other Google services can be used for sockpuppetry and spamming and other nefarious activities. But there were similar advantages when Google tried to collect children's social security numbers linked with their parents' contact details as part of a children's colouring competition, however that still raised eyebrows for obvious reasons.

Aside from all this, what we do know is there's evidence there has been at least some unauthorised access to a Wikipedia-linked Gmail account as part of the PIA dispute. Whether Gmail accounts are intrinsically more vulnerable remains unclear. Their authentication technology has some weaknesses exacerbated by this obsession with "linking", but has otherwise proven sound in the past. Gmail has the advantage that it doesn't currently give away your IP address when sending email, unlike most other providers. However, it's still a good idea to observe basic security practices like strong passwords, different passwords for different sites, and so on. A published cryptographic commitment to your identity, and keeping all personal information out of your Wikipedia-linked Gmail account, are also sensible last lines of defence. Personally I avoid replying to unsolicited emails from people who are unknown or whose behaviour in the PIA area is questionable, and anyone with access to my Gmail account would find no personal information but a great deal of boring Wikipedia-related correspondence, the bulk of which seems to relate to UK public transport for some reason :)

I've added a separate heading for this section, as it doesn't seem connected with the preceding one. Feel free to tweak. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make a long story short, thank you for offering your input but it does not apply to my circumstances. As I disagree – strongly, in fact – that the two incidents are unrelated, I have restored my message to its original context. I'll thank you not to move it again.—Biosketch (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's absolutely fine. How you have it right now keeps my comment in a section appropriate to its contents, which was my only concern.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then your view is that AGK's topic ban of User:Supreme Deliciousness (which happened to be on an AE motion filed by you) is directly related to what you believe is a hacking attempt against your Gmail account. Can you explain why you believe these two things are directly related? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Supreme Deliciousness was banned on the night of 29-30 May. My alarm was set for 5 am this morning Jerusalem time. I've never had problems with my Gmail account before, but since waking up I've had to validate my password on two separate occasions in the space of an hour. The statistical probability that the proximity of these occurrences is purely arbitrary is exceedingly tiny. (Edited to add: It goes without saying that my identity as the user who opened the AE against Supreme Deliciousness would make me the prime target for a hacker with motives aligned with a certain camp among I/P contributors. So it's the confluence of these three things – the time of the ban, the time of and repeated attempts to gain access to my email account, and my identity as the user who opened the AE against Supreme Deliciousness.) (And edited again to add: I tend not to suspect Supreme Deliciousness of being personally involved in this attempted sabotage, because he was most likely still sleeping when all this happened.)—Biosketch (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes that does seem to make sense, it is a more than suspicious set of coincidences. One could speculate that the presumed would-be hacker would have a motive in that they wanted to find out if your AE request was in any way related by off-wiki correspondence to the previous attempts made to get AE action taken against SD.

I'm glad that you noted SD's likely lack of personal involvement in such activity. One of the several unwelcome consequences of the apparent use of hacking in the topic area, is the ease with which both involved and uninvolved editors can find themselves assuming that someone is complicit with such activity purely on the basis of their involvement in the topic area or their knowledge of some of the issues that emerge as a result. It's an exacerbation of distrust that makes a bad situation worse. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big mistake

You have done a big mistake.

I would like to appeal, and want you to provide diffs and explain why I violated anything in those diffs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal regarding AE for articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict

Dear AGK, I don't really know how or where to comment, so I will make my suggestions here. Feel free to move them to some discussion forum if that exists.

1. I think all A/I articles should be semi-protected. This will help fight (though not eliminate) sock puppets.

2. I think all substantive edits (that is, all edits which are netier minor nor removal of vandalism) to A/I articles (not talk pages) MUST have an edit summary.

3. For the most problematic articles, we may consider requiring ALL edits to be discussed on the article talk page before they are made. - BorisG (talk)

What do you think? - BorisG (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #2 (edit summaries), I would suggest that it is at best not needed. Edit summaries are a good thing and are strongly encouraged. I personally am lazy and need to do them more. However, lack of edit summaries have not been something that I have seen spur conflicts in the topic area. Editors have gamed the system in various ways but trying to sneak things in without an edit summary is something noticed pretty quickly. I hate to sound contrary, but edit summaries have actually been used to make arguments. I wish editors would use the talk page more instead of focusing on edit summaries. Edit summaries have also been used to make snarkey comments which is also problematic. Even one of the diffs brought up at SDs recent AE was based on an edit summary that one editor saw a a problem. Furthermore, making edit summaries mandatory could lead to even more AE requests in games of "Gotcha". Edit summaries are good but adding this as yet another layer of rules could result in the opposite of what is intended. Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Boris re #1 & #2, but shouldn't this discussion be centralized at the talk page for AGK's proposal, wherever that proposal currently lives? Is it at the proposals page for the Village Pump? I can't find it, myself. Also, I'll mention that Gatoclass has made a carefully thought-out proposal that would comprise the Israel/Palestine conflict area, but also include all other contentious topic areas. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic AE closure

In the matter of Supreme Deliciousness there are several questions/objections I would like to raise:

1. "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." You seem to be claiming that the editor has failed to adhere to the purpose of WP(?), or you've strayed beyond the decision to make "unhelpfulness" ban-able, but in either case I think you have an obligation, before sanctioning the editor, to demonstrate what actions led to the ban. The discussion does not do this. The original complaint, with three strike-throughs, is contentious at best.
2. "Any uninvolved administrator..." but in this case there were three uninvolved admins on the page, and consensus was forming towards no action. It is possible for you both to be within your rights, yet behaving problematically.
3. Given that there were more uninvolved admins at that discussion, Ed carefully requested a proposal, but you responded not with a proposal, but with a close. This seems rash.
4. Given, in the last few weeks, your close of Nableezy, your close of Supreme Deliciousness, and your solicitousness towards Gilabrand, I'm feeling now that while you are genuinely uninvolved, that you also have genuinely sympathies.

I strongly urge you to bear these points in mind, both in considering what has recently taken place, and in considering your role in the I/P area moving forward. Sincerely, Jd2718 (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no objections to how Anthony closed the Supreme Deliciousness case. It was well within his discretion. My prior note on the AE page would alert him to the fact that it would most likely be closed with no action unless there was a specific recommendation. I've read the rationale for his close, and I see nothing to object to in his reasoning. As Sandstein reminds us periodically, an AE close is a one-person decision. The amount of consensus that goes into it is for the closing admin to decide. (The exception is for Arbitration Enforcement appeals, where consensus to lift the ban is needed). There are checks and balances to ensure that AE closers don't go wild. I don't see any wildness here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I think I should let you know of some concerns I raised at Ed's talk page about this closure and that I also asked for Sandstein's comments, at Ed's suggestion. – OhioStandard (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I am aware that the opinions of individual members of the Wikipedia community count for less in this. However, as "merely" a community member, it's my opinion that "not seeing wildness" is not a great reason to ignore concerns if those concerns repeatedly resurface; and also AGK's borderline closings, including closings contrary to the apparent concensus at the time, and post-facto block-log commentaries, are displaying, to an outsider, a tendency to come down on one particular side of a certain dispute area.

I have no objection to AGK expressing his support for Mbz1 or any other editor, if she convinced him by her email of whatever argument she expressed; but I do think arbitration enforcement actions should always be held to the highest standards. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 262: / Line 262: @@
 ::@<u>AGK</u>: I think I should let you know of some concerns I raised at Ed's talk page about this closure and that I also asked for Sandstein's comments, at Ed's suggestion. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 20:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
+:::Ed, I am aware that the opinions of individual members of the Wikipedia community count for less in this. However, as "merely" a community member, it's my opinion that "not seeing wildness" is not a great reason to ignore concerns if those concerns repeatedly resurface; and also AGK's borderline closings, including closings contrary to the apparent concensus at the time, and post-facto block-log commentaries, are displaying, to an outsider, a tendency to come down on one particular side of a certain dispute area.
+:::I have no objection to AGK expressing his support for Mbz1 or any other editor, if she convinced him by her email of whatever argument she expressed; but I do think arbitration enforcement actions should always be held to the highest standards. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 21:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)