User talk:Arcticocean

"Observe how fleeting and paltry is all mortal life; yesterday a drop of mucus, tomorrow a mummy or handful of ashes. And spend these fleeting moments on earth as Nature would have you spend them, and then go to your rest with a good grace, as an olive falls in its season, with a blessing for the earth that bore it and a thanksgiving to the tree that gave it life." Where this user currently is, the time is 20:40, Sunday 14 July 2024. This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Wikipedia: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight".

Why is the mediation for Peter Proctor suspended?

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, I would like to understand why has this mediation been suspended? -Wikishagnik (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the disputants has been subjected to unpleasant, off-site behaviour, potentially as a result of their contributions to the article associated with that request. I would therefore everybody involved in the mediation request to go and do something else until we can confirm whether the off-wiki harassment is as a result of the dispute in question. Regards, AGK [•] 23:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been trying to accept mediation invitation for this, however not able to find where on 3 forms I do this. Could you please take this as my acceptance as the deadline says it is tomorrow.

BTW. Since most everything is open source on here & net, what and where is this specific online alleged harassment? (link here or on mediation page) What is the date set for completion of determining if whatever it is, that it is actually harassment and not some overly sensitive attempt to derail a mediation with just some open source info on net? Inhouse expert (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll interpret your comment here as your agreement to the mediation.

I will not be disclosing details about what happened, here or elsewhere, so I suggest you do not ask. Harassment of any sort is an awful thing, and even worse when directed at volunteers who are merely trying to help write an encyclopedia. Regards, AGK [•] 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update but do take care of this at the earliest as me and some other editors feel very strongly about the content and NPOV issues. -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Its been almost a week after the investigation started. has there been any progress on this investigation? Where is this investigation being conducted?-Wikishagnik (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Could the two schools and Dr Proctor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pproctor receive an official invite to the mediation as pertinent parties? For claims of a Masters Degree, PhD, Thesis adviser, M.D. Residency, Specialization Degree(s) in Pathology, Dermatology,Neuroscience, BioPsychiatry contacthttp://registrar.uth.tmc.edu/reg_contact.html In regards to claims of being Faculty/Staff position at Baylor. http://www.bcm.edu/hr/contact and Faculty and/or Staff position at UTMB http://hr.utmb.edu/ Another concern with mediation is the acknowledged relationship in person of Nucleoliphic with Proctor and then these other two DrJems & Bandn echoing Nucleoliphics views on your Mediation register page & during DRN and DrJems on talk page, even in cases when blatantly false but where it would serve Dr. Proctor's hair loss business, by claiming he is a licensed Dermatologist which he isn't according to State Medical Board http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/OnLineVerif/Phys_ReportVerif.asp?ID_NUM=100876&Type=LP&LicensePermit=G3056 yet it is on his article page still. The request is to please make sure all IP addresses are not coming from Texas where Dr. Proctor is located or proxy serversInhouse expert (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:The Duke of Waltham

Can you please undelete the user page? It is a clear MfD candidate and the issue had been discussed on the talk page. This is certainly not a case for unilateral administrative action. Ryan Vesey 20:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I type too slow, I guess. What Ryan said. I've undeleted the page in the mean time, but MFD is definitely the appropriate way to go, not insulting a very productive user who, like many, has a humorous user page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I disagree entirely with your reasoning, but more urgent and worrying is your unilateral reversion of my action where no prior attempt was made to discuss the matter with me. Plainly, I was aware of the discussion on the talk page of this account; I could hardly not have noticed it, given that I left my own message in the same thread. However, the hoax speedy deletion criterion is designed specifically to avoid these types of articles, wherever they may be. The intention behind hoax articles (that is, whether they are designed as a joke or as a serious attempt to present the subject as real) is ultimately an irrelevancy. The only relevant question is whether the page is likely to deceive the readership into thinking that the Duke of Waltham is a real person; the page I deleted is unarguably likely to do so. Please revert your action; I do not say lightly (or without sadness) that I consider you to have initiated a wheel war, and am prepared to pursue your action accordingly. I await your response, AGK [•] 15:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is this wheel war you speak of? Unless you are expressing your own intention to initiate a wheel war, I am confused. Again, take this to MfD, there is no more appropriate forum. Ryan Vesey 16:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sick to death of admins who unilaterally bully another user, and then complain because they were reverted unilaterally. The speedy deletion criteria are for obvious, unambiguous deletion cases, where there is no significant likelihood of disagreement; they are not to be used to muscle your way through and avoid the hassle of an MFD discussion. You're an Arb, for God's sake, I shouldn't have to be telling you this. I, for one, disagree that the G3 criterion is "obvious" in this case; Ryan is another. The Duke of Waltham is obviously another. So calling it "unarguably" confusing is hyperbole. That page has been there for years, confusing no one, and yet you felt it a good idea to barge into the situation and use your delete button first.

The solution is simple. If you think it should be deleted, start an MFD about it. That's the minimum amount of respect that The Duke of Waltham deserves. If consensus is to delete, then I will be further disappointed in the people around here, but I'll certainly respect the outcome.

And in another area where I'd hoped Arbs might be more informed about policy, reverting an action is not wheel warring; re-doing an action you know is disputed is. I know you and some others, even an Arb or two, think it should be different. I dread the day that policy is changed and your "respect my authority" approach is implemented. But for now, I have policy on my side, so save your accusations of wheel warring for someone else. Now courtesy and good practice would normally dictate that I talk to you first, but since you showed zero courtesy to the long term user whose page you deleted, I don't think you particularly have a great case for demanding more courtesy from me than you showed him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, the page has been discussed between two users and the page owner (which hardly constitutes a significant, ongoing discussion), and the owner of the page has given no ground. The page is not an MFD candidate; it is a candidate for speedy deletion. If one of the CSD applies, a page is inherently unsuited to MFD, because the CSD exist to avoid wasting the community's time with articles for which there is an overwhelming precedent in favour of unilateral deletion. I contend that a deeply misleading article that would give the impression to a reasonable reader that this bizarre and non-existent subject does exist is a discredit to the encyclopedia and ought to be deleted. Separate from Floquenbeam's reversal of my action (which I have already expressed my profound objection to), I am therefore at a loss to know why the CSD should be waived in this case. AGK [•] 15:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that G3, in regards to hoaxes, must be vandalism. Vandalism is "addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". (emphasis in the original) This is certainly not a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. It is blatantly obvious that this is meant to be humorous (have you even read the article?). When you take it to MfD, I'll pipe in and say {{Humor}} should be added to the article. Until you take it to MfD, no actionshould be taken. Ryan Vesey 16:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AGK, you object to Floq's unilateral undeletion of the page without discussing it with you first. This argument would apply equally to your actions: you unilaterally deleted the user page of an experienced user in good standing without discussing it with him (see WP:UP#DELETE). You are certainly aware that Floq is not wheel-warring, which requires a third action: the page was deleted, then undeleted, no re-deletion. If you think the page should be deleted, take it to MFD; CSD is meant for obvious and uncontroversial deletions, and this was neither. (As an aside, if you really think this page is "unarguably likely" to deceive people who actually read it, you must have a very dim view on the intelligence of our readers - it's quite clear within the first paragraph that this is not real). (After EC: also per Ryan). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AGK, I believe you are mistaken about your interpretation of the G3 speedy deletion criteria. Should this userpage be sent to MfD, I will be !voting to keep it, but a better course of action in my opinion would be to leave it alone and spare the community a distracting debate that has zero to do with building the encyclopedia. I won't belabor the point others have made about what wheel-warring is and isn't. 28bytes (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Folks, you need to look at WP:CSD#G3 again. That criteria applies to "Pure vandalism, and blatant hoaxes" and to "blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism" (emphasis added to both quotes). The semantics are important: blatant hoaxes that intend to misinform are subject to this criterion. Ryan, you are incorrect that hoaxes must also be vandalism (would it not be strange that hoaxes are only worthy of immediate deletion if they were published by a vandal with no prior contributions to the project? Would the hoax be less damaging if it were published by an experienced contributor, not a vandal?). Nikkimaria, it has been argued that my action is controversial; that it has been so argued does not make my action controversial—merely wrongly contested. The criterion clearly apply in this case, and I fail to find any validity in the arguments to the contrary. Can somebody point me to a policy-based argument why CSD G3 does not apply, or at least make a reasonable case why it should be waived in this instance? 28bytes, the CSD criteria existso that pointless debates that waste our editors' time are avoided; when we insist that the criteria do not apply to this obvious hoax, that is when a distracting debate is created. AGK [•] 18:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hoaxes are vandalism, there is no arguing that point. Have you read {{Db-hoax}} which says "This only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism. See CSD G3." CSD G3 points you to Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, which states "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real" it later states "Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism". While this is stylistically written like a Wikipedia article, it is most definitely not vandalism, and not intended to trick an audience into believing something false is real. The audience would only be tricked if they didn't read the article, in which case there's no problem anyways. Ryan Vesey 19:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Quite: the policy states that hoaxes on Wikipedia are considered vandalism; it does not say that a hoax has to be created by a vandal in order to be a hoax, and as I said above I would not consider that to be a reasonable interpretation of policy. However, I think when we are scraping a sentence from the attached CSD template or the bottom of a policy—and ignoring the spirit and lead of the policy ("hoaxes are an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real")—we are truly defending the indefensible. The userpage is a hoax, and has no place on a serious encyclopedia; do you disagree? AGK [•] 19:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I never said that a hoax had to be created by a vandal, I said that hoaxes are vandalism; therefore, if it isn't vandalism, it isn't a hoax. You must obviously believe that it is vandalism in spite of the four editors in good standing who have told you it's not. Answering your final question, yes, I do disagree. Ryan Vesey 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• I haven't skipped out on this, but Ryan has already said what I would have. The only thing I'll add is that I don't think this is a case of us following the letter and you following the spirit of the policy; I think your interpretation of this page as a "hoax" misapplies both the letter and the spirit of the policy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• AGK, I would agree with what you say if the page in question were in article space: G3 hoax, absolutely. But it's in userspace, and specifically the userpage for the editor. Editors are allowed to be humorous, whimsical and/or satirical when crafting a page that describes themselves. If there were BLP issues (e.g. the editor claims to be dating Katy Perry), or personal attacks, or other violations of the policies and guidelines that apply to all namespaces, I agree it would be problematic and likely speedyable, but it's not appropriate to apply article space standards (e.g. accurate information, properly sourced, etc.) to what's essentially an editor's "About Me" page. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I misspoke when I said "wheel war". I ought to have said "inappropriate reversal of another administrator's action", which courtesy, good sense, and policy prohibit we administrators do. AGK [•] 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I have been involved in the kerfluffle, I thought I would comment. Personally, I don't see it as CSD'able, but is clearly MFD'able. Even with his recent changes, it still fits the profile for deletion. He seems to recognize that there may be some issues, but it's quite fixing them to the level required (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

He certainly does. I started drafting a response on the applicability of the G3 speedy-deletion criterion, but this has already been covered. I have responded on my talk page about conformation with the user-pages guideline. Waltham, The Duke of 19:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

On another note: you don't seem bothered, but in any event I'm sorry I didn't let you know we were talking about your userpage on this page. This thread developed quite quickly, and it slipped my mind to drop you a courtesy note. Regards, AGK [•] 20:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But I certainly am bothered by what I view as a heavy-handed administrative action on your part, AGK; I can understand why one would want to nominate my user page for deletion, but I was shocked by the use of the CSD hammer on a page that has been sitting harmlessly out of the way, pretty much unchanged, since early 2007. It was a measure too extreme for a case which I have trouble seeing as being so clear-cut as you claim it was, and for the first time I have seen for my own why many editors are mistrustful of administrators. I am not talking about right or wrong, but about unnecessary bluntness, which can quickly escalate a situation if cooler heads don't prevail. I think I'll be more careful in my edit summaries from now on... Waltham, The Duke of 21:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I refuse to accept that this page did not fall clearly within the scope of CSD G3, but I will not tempt arrogance by thinking that my own view is so assuredly correct that I can dismiss the rest of you. I will therefore follow your suggestions that the page be taken through MFD. I remain deeply concerned about Floquenbeam's unilateral reversal of my action, and ask him to please, the next time, to contact the administrator he is about to revert in advance; I do not think I would have been able to hit the "undelete" button if our positions were reversed, nor would the community's policies have permitted me to… AGK [•] 20:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• But it's a two-way street, isn't it? I view BWilkins as the "first responder" in this situation. He decided not to speedy it, but to instead discuss with the user before potentially opening an MfD. You overrode his decision and speedied it. Surely BWilkins doesn't have less standing for his administrative decisions to be respected than you or I do? 28bytes (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Quite: I suppose you're correct that BWilkins did imply that he considered the CSD but decided they didn't apply. I certainly do not think our decision carries more weight than his; I merely hadn't considered that he, in his own way, had made a decision too. (This opens up the "third mover" debate that has plagued Wikipedia since the Sidaway wheel war, so we may wish to preserve our sanity by leaving that topic be…) AGK [•] 21:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't violated any policies. My reciprocal advice to you about how you should act in the future will have to wait until my disgust has ebbed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam: Um, yes, you have. We don't go around reverting other administrator's actions because we consider our own interpretation of policy to be unquestionably correct. I'm astonished that you don't recognise that the "shoot first" approach you have adopted here was suboptimal at best. If you are disgusted, I suggest you extend your restraint so that you also do not make veiled references to your disgust; it's unseemly. AGK [•] 21:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• "administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion" - "usually" is not a requirement, and there was definitely good cause, making Floq's action within policy, even if you don't like it. Again, please consider your own approach, which was at least equally "shoot first", and contrary to policy - WP:UP#DELETE: "unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted...other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion." See also Wikipedia:UP#On_others.27_user_pages for behavioural guidance. And if you really insist: [Controversial: arousing a debate or discussion of opposing opinions. Not "arousing opposing opinions I'm willing to accept as valid". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ok Floq & AGK, I implore you to stop the fight here. The better way forward is, if we really care to assist the Duke in not getting their userpage MFD'd is to actually suggest fixes - and stop the internal (and infernal) bickering :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fairly said. I understand that a "this is a joke" or {{humour}} template was suggested, but that Duke did not wish one to be added to his userpage. If an MFD was framed from the beginning as proposing that such a template be mandatory (in addition to proposing the page's deletion), I would be confident a consensus on the former proposal could be obtained. If Duke is reading: should the abrasiveness of the existing templates be what you dislike about the idea of having one added to your userpage, then what about a custom-made one that is more subtle? Perhaps this:

This userpage is not a Wikipedia article and should not be read as one.

Thoughts? AGK [•] 21:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This would be wise. The little tiny "humour" tag at the top is not sufficient. What would also make it stand out as a non-article (and add to the humour) would be a hand-drawn black mustache on the image ;-P (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've requested clarification at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G3 clarification. I would politely request that the people who have chimed in here do not chime in there as well until the discussion develops a bit -- I'd like to know what people think when the question is disconnected from the page/parties involved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, leading the question by suggesting that it's "obvious satire" is odd - I'm well-educated, and at the first few looks, it's not all that "obvious" due to format, ref's, structure, and elements that are traditionally reserved for actual articles (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, if you have problems telling something is satire when it starts with "Honorary Professor of Sarcasm" and ends with "Duncan, the Ducal Duck", this is not the encyclopedia's problem. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

...that would entail actually reading every single word - unless you're on ANI, who has time to do that? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've long been under the impression that those who enter into the beginning of a discussion almost always read every word while those who enter late rarely do. Ryan Vesey 01:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And here I thought you had issues with satire. You obviously have it down to a fine art. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I skip lots of letters: at 8:31PM (having been up since 3AM), I read your sentence above as "You obviously have it down to a fine art" and wondered what made me a sly fart LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You really need to ask? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I honestly appreciate the efforts to provide a compromise solution, and I am tempted to adopt one and return to my hitherto under-appreciated peace and quiet. However, I remain unconvinced that my page really is as much a potential source of misinformation as BWilkins and AGK claim. For one thing, almost everyone who has commented on the matter has indicated that they consider the ruse transparent and unconvincing. For another, Mr Wilkins bases his argument about my page's deceptive nature on the fact that people may not read it carefully. That is true, and at first look people may indeed miss obvious signs like the "User:The Duke of Waltham" title and the little icon of a griffin at the top, and be fooled by the page's structure into thinking it is an article. But as Mr Vesey has noted, they would not be misinformed without reading the thing, and it wouldn't take much reading for them to find that the page is a joke. Besides, I am beginning to wonder about the legths to which we are expected to go for those who pay insufficient attention to what they are reading. To put it another way: if one reads a perfectly accurate article and misses every third word or every second sentence, will one still not leave with misinformation in the form of half-formed or downright erroneous impressions? We operate here under certain assumptions, and I don't believe any Wikipedian would be prepared to accept blame for the confusion of so inattentive a reader... Waltham, The Duke of 06:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll add the page to my watchlist and see what develops. I'm happy to hold my own thoughts until those who are coming to this a-fresh have had the opportunity to present their opinion. AGK [•] 00:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I got four answers, and have now linked to the Duke's page and this discussion. Thank you all for holding off up to this point -- feel free to join in there if you like. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a thought - instead of putting any sort of template on the page, why not change the start of the first sentence to "This is the userpage of ..."? Whilst I seriously doubt that anyone would consider it to be a real article anyway, that would remove all doubt. Black Kite (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm an old editor who has now moved on to better things in life but I have known the user you all are talking about from before. I got here to see if he is still active on Wikipedia since I had emailed him about something important and he had not replied in over a week. Checked on his contributions to see his last active date, and I see this discussion.

If I may be honest here, this whole argument sounds like teenagers arguing about who the best superhero is, or about who would win an imaginary battle between Dumbledore and Frodo. Boy, am I glad I moved on! Anyway, my point is, those teenagers don't understand that the basis they are using to make their points is only made-up and is not well-researched and well-written law. And that is true with Wikipedia rules and wordings as well. Yes, the criteria for speedy deletion page says "hoax, vandalism" meaning either is enough qualification under that criteria. And yes, the hoax box says otherwise.

One can argue by deliberately misinterpreting the law all day long. But the fact remains that AGK is ultimately on the money here. That being, the user page does look like a Wikipedia article to casual observers. That is the point that is getting lost amidst the trivial wordings of the rules. Even if you do add that notice or a sentence on top, it is still going to look like an article. The average Wikipedia editor is not the average Wikipedia reader. I could bet that out of 100 people who use Wikipedia as a reference, 99 do not know you can signup and create a page about yourself. In fact, I am sure more than half don't even know the site is just user-submitted content. That does not mean they are dumb. They are just ignorant. And yes, the page does show up on google results for "waltham, duke" which is incidentally the way I got to the user page today anyway.

I know I am only an outsider with no business here but seeing how you people are hounding AGK for doing what looks like the right thing to me, I felt I had to speak up. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarytone (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel a little invested in this debate now. I will watch this page. I will create a Queen of America user page once the this is settled. That ought to be fun! Since everyone knows America has no Queen, I could argue it is an obvious attempt at humor. Clarytone (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page on the subject of the e-mail.

On the matter of my user page, I stand by my previously stated position: article-looking or not, the page cannot mislead anyone through the mere fact of its own existence. Misinformation requires the conveyance of information, and any but the most distracted or foolish of readers will conclude that the page is a joke (it even addresses the reader directly in places, for goodness' sake). The same would be true even if one were only to read the image captions, two out of three of which are clearly absurd; the third image is my coat of arms, the imaginary nature of which is plainly stated in the description page thereof (for anyone who would be interested enough to click on the image).

And yes, this discussion is indeed something of a waste of time in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. But so are thousands of others, and it can't be helped when we are dealing with a community of volunteers. Waltham, The Duke of 13:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my bluntness, but are you seriously suggesting any casual reader of the web who takes one look at your page and thinks there is a real Duke of Waltham is a fool? Clarytone (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not. I said "distracted or foolish", in the interests of being accurate; I suppose that most people who might make such an error as you describe will have simply failed to read the text properly, but on the other hand I cannot ignore the great numbers of foolish people (e.g. trolls) with which the Internet appears to be populated. I imagine I'll soon regret such undiplomatic literalness on my part, but please do me the favour of not taking my words out of context. Waltham, The Duke of 17:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You did say: "any but the most distracted or foolish of readers will conclude that the page is a joke", which naturally follows that you would conclude anyone who lands up on the page and does not infer it is a joke is a fool provided he/she is not distracted, isn't it? I think that is a fairly discriminatory way of looking at things. You could probably host the page on your own website with no trouble at all, but since it is displayed on a public website where anything published carries a high level of credibility among readers, I think it is only fair that you add at least a banner on top explaining clearly that it is a user page created only for fun and none of what is written is true or meant to be taken literally. Clarytone (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

How about moving the boilerplate text ("This is a Wikipedia user page") from the foot to the top of the page? -- Trevj (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is as intrusive as anything else I might add up there, if not more... In my view, this discussion is not about what I might place at the top of my user page, but about whether it is really necessary that I place anything there at all. I don't believe it is, and I don't believe the guidelines require it. What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 16:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So, it looks like it's time to WP:MFD it. You can lead a horse to water, but you obviously cannot make him drink from it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Question re Waldorf Education arbitration case

Hi Anthony, I have concerns about the long-term conduct of a user involved in WE article and related case. It was suggested to me that I raise the issue at ANI, but before I did, I wanted to check with someone and make sure that I shouldn't be doing it under the auspices of the arbitration case. It's not really clear to me where the best venue would be for this, due to the open status of the review and the limited remedies given in the original case, and I would appreciate any input you might have. (Also sorry if I shouldn't contact you directly since you're on a case with which I am peripherally involved -- if this is the case feel free to ignore this). Thanks for any help you can provide, a13ean (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor mention

I mentioned you at WT:Arbitration/Requests#Are some editors are more equal than others?. It's about an AE statement you made, and while it's pretty minor you may want to look. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

ARS RFAR

With the current 500-word limit I would not be able to elaborate further on the need for a case. I have limited the number of parties in part because of that limit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser me?

Hi, I used to be User: King jakob c (which had reviewer and rollback rights), but I lost my password, so had to create a second account. Would it be possible for you to checkuser me and King jakob c to verify that that's the same person, so I could get those rights back? Thanks,

King jakob c 2 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The King jakob c account was editing within the last 24 hours. How could you have lost your password, when you had it so recently? Risker (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The King jakob c account was created 171 days ago. That could imply that the user had told the program to remember him for 180 days and had never needed to enter the password since the first time. It's unfortunate that there is no committed identity, but I'll leave a note on King jacob c's page. Since he's been active recently, he'll be able to let us know if he's still able to log in. If he says nothing, I say take King jakob c 2's statement in good faith. Ryan Vesey 03:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done some checking, and I can say that I'm almost positive these are the same accounts. We might want to wait another day to see if the old account makes any edits, but can King jakob c 2 receive the userrights held by the old account? He'd also need the confirmed userright, if there's any hesitation, I'll offer to keep an eye on his edits. Ryan Vesey 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, what checking did you do? If you've found something you'd prefer not to talk about on-site, feel free to e-mail me or the Functionaries' mailing list. I'd be happy to give King Jakob his rights back, but we need to verify his identity beforehand. AGK [•] 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Ryan Vesey 23:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

King jakob:  Done. AGK [•] 20:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I also confirmed? I can edit semi-protected pages but I can't move pages. King jakob c 2 (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, you did not have the confirmed permission before, which is why I did not assign you it. I've now given you that permission too. When your account is autoconfirmed, please ask me or another administrator to revoke the permission (it will be unnecessary); asking in a few days or a week should be sufficient. Regards, AGK [•] 22:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm autoconfirmed now if you want to get rid of my confirmed flag.^King Jakob _C2 19:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please comment?

Would it be possible for you to help me? Could you confirm whether or not whitening is being mentioned in this cite – Abstract - http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940 Fully readable - http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jmuniz/schwartzman2007.pdf

The reason why I ask is because a editor seems to be claiming that the whitening ideology other wise known as whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento both mean whitening) is not being mentioned in this sage publication.

I made a small edit to a page a few weeks ago and I noticed that an entire section was removed from multiple different pages based on a claim that the citations did not mention a certain word. The words in question were the whitening ideology other wise known as whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento. I did not wish to comment right away because some of the citations were only abstracts and therefore not full readable while others were links to book sales. Due to the fact many of the citations were unreadable I had to take a few weeks to find readable versions. I also wanted to take time to research the subject of whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento before I commented on the subject.

After taking a few days to research the subject I decided to point out that this word (whitening/blanqueamiento/branqueamento) was in fact mentioned more than 40 times in one citation alone. Having looked from the editing history the first, original and only citation that the section (Blanqueamiento (whitening) racial classification) was originally based on was this sage publication - http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940. A large section of what is written in the section (Blanqueamiento (whitening) racial classification)) is clearly supported by this sage publication.- http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940. Later other citations were added.

As I said before the word that was claimed that was not being mentioned was the whitening ideology otherwise know as whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento mean whitening). The title of the sage publication was called- does money whiten and whitening is clearly visible in the abstract. I really do not understand how different editors appear to have read the title does money whiten, see whitening clearly mentioned in the abstract, see clear reference to the whitening ideology, see whitening mentioned more than 40 times and than both come to the same false conclusion that whitening/blanqueamiento/branqueamento is not being mentioned in this sage publication –http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940

I pointed out that whitening was being mentioned more than 40 times in the sage publication and the response I got from the editor (who previously claimed whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento was not being mentioned) was rather odd. I was told that the editor did not wish to comment at the moment as to whether or not whitening was being mentioned. I don’t understand how someone can remove an entire section from a page based on a claim that whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento was not being mentioned and than say they do not wish to comment on whether this word is being mentioned or not. Is it just me or does it seem odd?

It has been more than a month since I was told by this particular editor that he/she did not wish to comment as to whether or not whitening was being mentioned and still he/she is yet to comment. The reason why I am asking whether or not you can confirm that the whitening ideology otherwise known as whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento is being mentioned in the sage publication is because the editor who seems to be claiming that whitening is not being mentioned has still yet to comment, more than a month later and he/she has failed to comment. If you are unable to help could you direct me to someone who can? Thanks in advance. --CR.ROWAN (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to AGK, for copy editing at least one article in the GOCE January copy edit drive. Thank you for participating! Dianna (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

CU statistics

Hi AGK. I saw that Amalthea updated the CU statistics & you updated the suppression ones, thanks for that! Two things though:

• MBisanz was missed from the list of CheckUsers -- he became one on 1 January 2013.
• FloNight is a member of the Ombudsman committee -- I gave him these back today per request of Mdennis (WMF).

Could you please add MBisanz to the list and update his statistics & add FloNight next month? Thanks! Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 21:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• FloNight is a her... again --Rschen7754 21:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ehm, oops... Guess I wasn't paying attention to you guys or so. ;) Apologies FloNight, I meant "her" of course! Trijnstel_talk 23:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

New user autoblocked by CU rangeblock

Hi - could you have a look at the unblock request of Frosty Simon (talk · contribs) please - he seems to be caught by a CU range block you imposed a couple of weeks ago [1]. I don't know if there's any connection with RainbowBacon69 (talk · contribs) - he claims there's no connection, but there's a similar pattern of putting unblock requests in category tags for some strange reason.  An optimist on the run! 17:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Optimist on the run is being remarkably generous in even considering this. To me, it looks like a clear duck case, and I would have simply declined the unblock request and blocked Frosty Simon indefinitely as a sockpuppet. However, since Optimist... has consulted you, I will leave it for the time being. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty. Actually, I did wonder if there was some interface hiccup that was causing unblock tags to appear as categories, though I admit it's unlikely. (Actually, looking at it again, I see "both" users tried to add unblock by using Hotcat. Has this been enabled by default?) Feel free to block as a duck-sock if you like.  An optimist on the run! 10:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you haven't replied here, but have made other edits, I have gone ahead and declined the unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry James. Only having a few minutes last night, I wasn't able to do more than read up on open arbitration matters and enter votes before signing off. I can check the blocked range to see what's going on with Frosty Simon, though that may be unnecessary if you have reached a separate (behavioural) conclusion that he is an obvious re-incarnation of the original blocked user. AGK [•] 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait and see if they make any further unblock requests.  An optimist on the run! 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Block User:Whatever318

Hi, sorry for interrupt, that user named User:Whatever318, which edited with others without reason, please block it with no expire set (unlimited).

P.S. If somebody needs unblock Whatever318, just do not unblock.