User talk:Arcticocean

"I myself know nothing, except just a little, enough to extract an argument from another man who is wise and to receive it fairly." Where this user currently is, the time is 15:20, Sunday 10 November 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".

Discretionary sanctions review

Hi AGK. I recently received a notice on my talk page that the clarification request I initiated a while ago has been archived but The Arbitration Committee has indicated that they intend to review Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary Sanctions during May 2013. This indicates that Arbcom is planning to work on new wording itself.

I have to say that after starting that request, due to the response I got, I came to the conclusion that Arbcom is not the best venue for sorting out issues of this type and that they would best be left to the community. There are many unresolved ambiguities and uncertainties regarding the operation of AE that can't adequately be addressed by tweaking the wording of the existing instructions, I think what will be required is a full guideline, for complainants, respondents and administrators alike. I must say then that I am somewhat alarmed by the notion that Arbcom is planning a "review" because I'm uncomfortable with the notion of Arbcom deciding for the community how it should deal with some of these issues. At the very least, I hope this "review" will be open to community input because I think it will be needed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions is a committee-mandated, committee-controlled process, so I don't quite understand your discomfort with our taking steps to give the process a long-overdue update. Since you don't make any reference to it, perhaps you could read my draft proposed replacement for the current iteration of "standardised discretionary sanctions" and then come back to me. Regards, AGK [•] 21:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'm afraid I missed it up to now because you took longer to reply than I anticipated.

I agree that discretionary sanctions are "committee mandated"; the point I was trying to make when I mentioned community input is that I think it unwise for the committee to attempt to redraft DS without input from the wider community, particularly from admins currently engaged at AE. This is because there are many nuanced issues to be considered that probably won't even be recognized by the committee without broader input.

With regard to your draft rewrite, I think it pretty clear that it failed to gain consensus even among the very limited number of users who chose to comment, indeed I ceased to comment on it when it seemed clear that progress on it had stalled. I'm not sure if your comment above indicates that you still propose to use this draft as the basis for a DS update, but I certainly hope that is not the case due to issues already outlined at the page not to mention other potential issues.

I might as well add at this point that after reviewing your draft, I came to the conclusion that the time has probably arrived for the addition of a full guideline for participation at AE. There is just so much confusion surrounding the workings of AE that I no longer think it practical to try and address all the outstanding issues in a few paragraphs of DS boilerplate. I had originally intended to begin a draft guideline a few weeks ago, with the intention of eventually seeking community input on it, but was unable to find the time. Unfortunately, having not given much thought to the subject over the last few weeks, I have gone a bit stale on the topic and would have to re-read and reconsider some of the older discussions before moving forward, but I'm still of the view that a guideline is probably the next logical step. Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Arcticocean a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! LovelyEdit talkedits 19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, LovelyEdit. Regards, AGK [•] 22:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Patter?

Hi AGK. When I looked up your recent post to WP:ARCA from my watchlist, my eye was drawn to the post above. Patter? As in, "Glib and rapid speech, such as from an auctioneer, or banter during a sports event"? Was that what you meant to say (glib and rapid speech from User:MastCell, really..?), or is it some kind of typo? (Pattern? Parrot? Payroll? Ratsbane?) Bishonen | talk 11:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

Oops! That should have been matter. Now fixed – thanks :-). AGK [•] 12:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Never occurred to me. :-) (Glad you didn't say you meant natter.) Bishonen | talk 12:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

Golden Wiki

		The Golden Wiki
		For dedication and hard work behind the scenes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SilkTork! This was very kind of you. Best, AGK [•] 22:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Race and politics parties

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. AGK [•] 06:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting editor assistance

I am requesting outside help on Oral gospel traditions. This starter article is about to burst into flames again after having previously been reduced to a smoldering stub. I think there is a likelihood this complex dispute will eventually end up in arbitration. The current conflict is just the latest episode in a long-running battle to control religious content spanning three years and several deleted-by-redirect articles. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have been active on Wiki yet have not responded to my request. May I ask why (or is it why not)? Ignocrates (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply forgot to reply. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for more information on resolving a content dispute or a grievance with another user's conduct. For the duration of my term as an arbitrator I cannot become involved in disputes except if they come to arbitration, so I will be unable to advise or assist you. Regards, AGK [•] 21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Although I don't mind starting with WP:DRN, they are likely to become quickly overwhelmed by the complexity of this dispute. As I said, it has been going on for over 3 years, and it is a thread running through at least 6 semi-related articles (I have lost count). Can you recommend an admin to serve in your place who is particularly skilled at mediating seemingly-intractable disputes? I have reached the outer-limits of my training in bargaining and negotiating. Ignocrates (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd definitely begin at DRN, and I'd maybe ask User:Mr. Stradivarius, User:Keilana, or User:Bishonen. AGK [•] 10:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You rang? :) DRN sounds like a good place to start, yes. I'm not taking any more disputes on myself right now, though - the Jerusalem thing has taken the wind out of my sails a bit, and I think I'll get that one finished and then take a break from dispute resolution for a few weeks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I did ring :-). These new notifications are really nice, now that I've gotten used to them. AGK [•] 11:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(I sensed a disturbance in the Force, turns out it was just a notification...) Hi! I agree with AGK and Mr. S that DRN is a good place to start, if that doesn't help please feel free to ask me, I'd be happy to step in and mediate if you need that. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am recusing myself from further informal mediation efforts on the article, but I will pass along this information. Ignocrates (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Some confusions for me

Thank you very much AGK for responding in a quick manner and unblocking me. Currently, I am having a couple of issues in which i need your guidance.

1) Can I remove that Sockpuppet template from My USERPAGE ?

2) What is the procedure to make my User page and Talk page unprotected ?

3) There were subpages under my username which were deleted by sysop in response to blocking. Is there any way to undelete those pages ?

Thank you. Max Viwe ♔ Viwe The Max 19:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

1. I have just blanked your userpage for you (so the sockmaster template has been removed). You may restore your old userpage from the page history or write up a new one.
2. I have just unprotected your user and user talk page.
3. I have restored your old userspace subpages, as you can see from Special:PrefixIndex/User:Maxviwe. I would encourage you not to use your "Guestbook" (because many editors perceive them to be a waste of time), but the choice is yours.

Please let me know if there is anything else you need done. Happy editing, AGK [•] 22:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Race and Politics Talk:Evidence

I believe you may have inadvertently closed Apostle12's inquiry along with Mathsci's inquiry. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I did indeed. Fixed – thanks! AGK [•] 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin overreach

FWIW, I was finally able to talk some sense into the relevant admins and had my block lifted. Slow and steady wins the race.

I was troubled to learn, in the process, that admins these days are handing out indef blocks like candy just for edit warring and perhaps other such venial sins. It's no wonder that you are so overwhelmed that the council couldn't hear my appeal.

I suspect that there should be a policy about, you know, not just batonning to death any poor soul who the janitors catch jaywalking. It is possible such a policy exists and I've never heard of it. If you have any ideas about it, please let me know. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear your unblock request was accepted. I cannot make any comment at this point about the merits of the original block or about the wider issues you raise, but I do hope you make lots of constructive contributions moving forward. AGK [•] 10:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a WP:DBAD response :( -- Kendrick7^talk 04:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I was being sincere! AGK [•] 13:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please withdraw your GAN

Geopolitics has barely any references and one cleanup tag. Please withdraw your nomination. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Please write the review, or leave it for somebody else, and I will fix any outstanding issues. (GAN is a method of obtaining feedback, as much as it is for giving people shiny trinkets or requiring them to satisfy vague criteria.)

Twenty references is more than the number of references found in many journal articles or textbook articles for this field – and as for the French approach section, I'm afraid I simply don't have access to the relevant references. You are ignoring the rest of the article, which I've worked quite hard on and has already been vetted. It occurs to me now that it's probably no wonder most people avoid GAN like the Plague. AGK [•] 10:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Much of the article is not properly referenced, and could barely reach B-Class status. According to Wikipedia:Good article criteria, I, or any other reviewer, could fail the GAN on the existence of the cleanup tag alone. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You aren't listening. While the actual result of the nomination is an irrelevancy to me, I would be very pleased to read your thoughts on the rest of the GA Criteria (scope, prose, sourcing in general, etc.). If you want to remove the nomination without evaluating the article against every criterion, then I would ask that you defer to somebody who will do it properly. Regards, AGK [•] 11:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but if I'm not mistaken, if you would like feedback about the article only, shouldn't you be nominating it for peer review instead of nominating it for GA status? The implicit purpose of GAN is to get an article to GA, and along the way, get some feedback, but you only seem to be interested in the feedback itself. Am I missing something? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 13:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am saying I'm as interested in the reviewer's constructive advice as to how we could improve the article further still as I am in attaining good article status. As you will know, nominators are instructed (at the GAN introduction) to "respond positively to constructive criticism and work with the reviewer to improve the article (if there are any issues) to Good article status." My motives are irrelevant, but as it happens I am interested in the "constructive criticism" the process mandates you will provide. I am also interested in your ultimate determination as to its quality, and my intention is to work on the article so that it does satisfy the criteria. However, you've stormed onto this page, told me to get my nomination off GAN, and offered a one-sentence denouncement of the article. I am therefore asking that you either do your job (in full – by filling out a full review and working with me), or that you move aside for another GAN volunteer. The process actually does not exist for its own sake, or to rubber-stamp little green circles onto articles. Rather, it exists to help editors improve their articles. I have used GAN because I am at a loss as to how to improve this article further, and could use the advice. Frankly, you are obliged to comply if you want to deal with GANs. I'm interested in the GA result as well as the feedback; do you only leave feedback for articles that satisfy the criteria, or is your summary declination of the nomination just on a complete whim? AGK [•] 14:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey AGK, sorry to butt in, but if you want a non-GAN review or if Phil isn't willing to do a review I'd be happy to give it a look, I'm quite interested in the subject. I agree that it doesn't meet GA standards as is but I'd be willing to give feedback to get it on its way. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)...a voice of reason at last... Basket _Feudalist 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

AGK, I think what you are looking for is this. A GAN is simply a waste of editorial time, given that it fails almost every point. What you really need is an expert on the subject, so that tag is perfect. You may wish to contact those projects and ask them for assistance; you may or may not get it though, I'm not sure.

However, as you know I've written quite extensively on many international relations-related articles, so I'll give you my opinion given you were wanting advice.

Whilst the word "geopolitics" may only be a 20th-century creations, the concept is not. The Roman Empire and Pax Mongolica are classic examples of right historical notions of geopolitics in action. Even the expansionism of European colonial powers is geopolitics in action. And we need not mention many of the events of the 19th century from Napoleon's trounces throughout Europe to a period in a part of Asia which I can't mention because of my topic ban (you can email me for details if you like), but an article on geopolitics really should include at least some detail on some of the greatest geopolitical games of our time.

The other thing it needs is a wider worldview -- it is very "western"/"europe" centric; and it goes into a lot of trivial detail on French and German geopolitical schools of thought which would be best written about in separate articles, such as Geopolitik. There is literally nothing on Japan, China, and another area which is of absolute importance when talking about geopolitics (particularly in the modern era).

It also needs more sources, and the quality of sources needs to be reliable and high quality. I know of other articles on this project which use sources self-published by a divorce lawyer who takes part in military re-enactments in his spare time to establish facts on specific geopolitical articles, and whilst not as bad Geopolitics#cite_note-20 is getting there; it's an article published in The Northern Times; a local newspaper in Kerang, a small town in Victoria with a population of 3,400. The article reads more like a press release, and whilst the author is probably adept at writing about Scouts' rubbish pick -up patrol (page 3) and the Kerang Blue's stunning defeat over the Mallee Eagles in the Central Murray Football League, I'm not really sure he's suitable as a source for Wikipedia's article on geopolitics.

I think your best bet is to contact those two projects and try and get some help from one of their editors, because I don't know of anyone else. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I also need to mention, and as I stated above, the German section deals too much with Geopolitik, and doesn't mention the concept at all that has allowed Germoney to achieve what it failed to achieve in two World Wars; that being the near total subjugation of Europe with the European Union. It has countries lining up to basically become Germany's bitch (blunt I know, but hey), and many in the UK want out just because of that fact. Look at contemporary events in the EU with all of these countries going into default; Germoney comes along to the rescue with multi-billion euro aid packages rescuing governments from all breaking loose in civil society; for example, lending Greece billions whilst forcing it to buy German submarines that it neither needs nor can support (toot toot), and the Golden Dawn gathers more support in the Greek public. Ireland, Portugal, Spain, the list goes on. And then you come to Cyprus, in which Germoney played a beautiful geopolitical game and didn't bail out, but rather let them default; it was an obvious kick in the guts, but not to Cyprus. Of course, the article needn't go into such detail, but it should probably at least mention the EU. At the moment I would probably rate the article as a start class article, and I wish you luck with getting it where you want to get it. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The original request could have been less confrontational, but GAN is not a place to request a peer review. Also, per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for, a quickfail would be appropriate here: "check that the article does not have cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags.[3] If it does you are entitled to fail the article without reviewing further." --Rschen7754 21:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments, and I'm sorry I've been too busy to respond before now. The edits and assistance is greatly appreciated, and anybody who would like to expand or refine the article (or to offer a review) is most welcome to do so. Like I said, I'm struggling to see how to improve this rather poor but detailed article (I suppose I've got writer's block with it). AGK [•] 13:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Note at the top of the page

This page still has "I am going to be inactive for awhile" at the top. Is an inactive AGK still more active than an active anyone else ... or did you just forget to remove the banner when you got back? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

At the time you left this message I had just forgotten to remove the banner, but my banner has became rather current again... As for whether an inactive me is still very active, perhaps I'm just better at looking like I'm busy while not doing very much! AGK [•] 13:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI

A few days ago you ordered Russavia to behave, but he is harassing your fellow arbitrator. Cheers.67.169.11.178 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

DS warnings and such

Hi, AGK: Did anything ever come of that discussion about codifying who can give discretionary sanction warnings and how/whether they can be appealed and the like? It came up today for me when a non-admin mentioned not having been able to warn a user about the Armenia-Azerbaijan sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Heim: there's a draft on a new procedure on the ArbCom wiki right now. It has been on the backburner for the last two months, but I think all that is left to do is figure out a better way to legitimize administrators imposing sanctions over an entire topic area (e.g. 1RR over Israel-Palestine). I'll see if I can move that along. NW (Talk) 13:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so it's just ArbCom's usual glacial pace. :-) I do hope it can be finished soon; we've been a bit in limbo over some ambiguous elements for a while. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion over the past 18 months or so that the only thing worse than ArbCom being glacial is ArbCom not being glacial. NE Ent 15:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

:-). AGK [•] 13:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Heimstern: It looks like we're going to have to hold a vote among the committee on this issue. The current wording for discretionary sanctions is too ambiguous for us to do anything except issue a binding ruling on who can place users "on notice" and who cannot. We provisionally scheduled this vote to take place this month, but it looks like we're going to get around to it in June. In the meantime, the status quo applies: anybody can place anybody else "on notice", and such notices once given cannot be appealed. AGK [•] 13:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. So, is this expected to be a posted motion on-wiki, or done off-wiki and posted thereafter? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. We're workshopping off-site (for practicality's sake – getting as detailed and tedious a motion as this one written up is easiest done on the arbwiki) but we will vote and decide between different outcomes (like whether notifications can be given by anyone or only a sysop) on-site at WP:A/R/M. AGK [•] 21:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Eminently sensible, and not lacking in transparency. Thanks for the info. I still think you guys are collectively winning the slow race against continental drift, though. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Some general thoughts on community imposed sanctions

I'm broadly comfortable with the conditions imposed on Cla68 with one exception, which I will emphasize has nothing the do with Cla68, it is a generic position of mine.

Other than technical blocks (e.g. violation of user name policy) which I view as accruing to name, not an editor, I am opposed to restrictions applied to a specific editor which are not time limited.

I am still struggling to articulate my reasons, which are solid in my mind, but which I struggle to put into words.

The ability of an editor (in the case of admin blocks) or groups of editors (consensus bans or Arbcom decisions) to impose conditions on others is a form of power. Wielders of power should always be concerned about abuse, and the appearance of abuse. These are two different things. I am confident that the committee feels it always avoids the first, and, in my limited review of Arbcom decisions, I have no counterexamples. However, Appearance of abuse is trickier, and can exist even when rational, honest, well-meaning individuals try hard to be fair.

My thought process is shaped by stories of prisoners. The prison staff has such power that prisoners are forced to grovel and beg in many circumstances, a position I abhor, and want to make sure we avoid this circumstance whenever possible. it is trite to say that an indef block is not an infinite block, it can be lifted as soon as the blockee write a convincing unblock request. Yet, this is an example of the use of power. Is it abused? I hope not, but there are appearances of abuse. I doubt any admin ever applying a block, or any Arbcom member supporting a sanction is relishing the idea of the subject groveling and begging for relief. Yet I am sure I can find examples where that is the perception of others.

We can eliminate this perception if all blocks and all Arbcom conditions are time limited. The time may be long, several years in the case of egregious situations, but absent the absurd (e.g. 99 years), and subject can choose between writing the condition removal request, or waiting it out.

I realize this might add a small level of bureaucracy—not only do you have to identify a condition, but you have to select a time frame. However, you do that in many cases now, and I suggest it should always happen. I'd like to see five or ten years as upper bounds, on the belief that all have potential for reform, and it is not a burden on the community to revisit a small handful of cases once every five or ten years.

As mentioned earlier, this proposal is not specific to Cla68, and isn't even specific to Arbcom. It has been on my To-do list (number 9) I think I could even support extending it to Admin appointments (which are a form of different treatment of editors), but that's a discussion for another day.

I don't literally expect you to make this change in the case of this instance, as doing so might create a precedent, and I think precedent creating discussions should be accompanied by a requisite amount of discussion, but I would like to see if the community would accept the notion that all such restrictions should be time limited, and I saw this as an example to first make my case.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with your thinking, but not your conclusion. Fairness and justice are very important in a healthy, functional community. However, Wikipedia has held pretty much since its inception that "due process" and other tenets of judicial thinking are secondary to the success of the encyclopedia, and that "indefinite" sanctions or blocks - while regrettable - are often necessary. Conversely, limiting the duration of a sanction or block - so the argument goes - solely in the interests of fairness would be the wrong thing to do. As for what to do about Cla68's current sanction, in the interests of letting that particular matter settle down I will offer no substantive response. AGK [•] 13:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any insight to long Arbcom blocks but my observation has been that any sort of reasonable request to have a five year old community ban lifted will likely reach consensus. (Actually, in the spirit of iar, a five year blocked editor could likely "covertly cleanstart" Template:I.e. sock a new account -- I don't think Wikipedia corporate memory goes back quite that far.) NE Ent 03:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. While I do not fully agree, it is helpful to understand the thought process. I'll give it more thought.--71.234.123.166 (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors May 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our May backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the June blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Golden Wiki

		The Golden Wiki
		For leadership, diplomacy and great common sense. Nelsondenis248 Nelsondenis248 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specifically this barnstar is for, but thank you very much nonetheless! AGK [•] 10:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fashionmodel Template

Hi Anthony, I noticed that you semi-protected the fashionmodel template (=>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Fashionmodel&action=edit) and although I am able to edit it, I am wondering if you could help me to do a modification in the URI of the FMD profiles, as I failed to do so. The current format on Wikipedia leads to the profile, but the correct format of the URI on FMD would be with a final trailing slash. Now we have e.g. http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/Kate_Moss on Wiki, but the correct address on the other side is http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/Kate_Moss/ . Would you be so kind and add the final slash to that template for me please? :-) ► robomod 19:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for the late response. I've just made the change you requested – hope this helps. Regards, AGK [•] 11:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

- Thank you so much! ► robomod 14:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing

Thank you for providing the link to Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. I wasn't aware of its existence. It summarizes with perfection the entire case. --Lecen (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So I'm Confused.

Editing arbcom pages while logged out is a blockable offense. You've accused me of editing logged out, without evidence, and yet I am not blocked.

I know the knee jerk answer there. Just KNOWING about arbcom is 'proof' an ip is a logged out user. But if that's true, the why aren't all arbcom pages automatically semi-protected? Presumably ips are allowed to contribute.

As arbcom says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I mean, did you not just vote that "an editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence"? Where is your evidence? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Responded to Jmh649 rfar

Responded. PumpkinSky talk 14:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your protection of User talk:Russavia

Hello, I noticed you have protected User talk:Russavia. Could you elaborate on the reasons under the protection policy for which you have protected this page? Looking at the history, I don't see evidence of abuse of the unblock template or the other reasons given on that page. Of course there could be some private issues I'm not aware of, but if that's true a statement of such in the protection reason would be helpful for third parties looking at the page. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. There are no privacy issues, and your confusion probably arises from the fact that the default drop-down message I selected contains a link to a section of the protection policy that no longer exists. Anyway, I protected the page because I did not wish to indefinitely revoke Russavia's talk page privileges (since if he wishes to appeal, he will have to do so through his talk page). Page protection is the only method of temporarily revoking a blocked user's talk page privileges. The appropriate section of the protection policy is WP:PP#Blocked users, which states: "protection [of a blocked user's talk page] should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block." I would not be terribly saddened if another administrator replaced by protection with an amendment to the block. AGK [•] 08:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well okay, but the protection policy also states, "Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor." It also states that blocking the user with removal of talk-page access should be preferred over page protection. I don't particularly see how attempting to communicate with other users via one's talk page merits protection of the page, except in extraordinary circumstances like repeated posting of non-public information by multiple users. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, AGK, you could explain how Russavia was misusing his talk page? He responded to a statement made about him in the Signpost, made legitimate queries regarding the underlying basis of his block, and has made some image suggestions. Russavia is blocked, not banned, so these are all legitimate uses of his talk page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

AGK, there seems to be a trend lately of prohibiting blocked users from posting to their talk page. I don't agree with this trend. If Russavia committed a violation of BLP, NPA, NPOV, or some other WP policy, then please say so in the block rationale. If there was no policy violation, are you sure the block is justified? Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Talk page access revocations have the same purpose as user blocks – namely, that they are designed to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia or its community. Russavia was indefinitely blocked for causing disruption and drama, but after being blocked he continued to cause the very same disruption and drama on his user talk page. That is why I locked his talk page. If you require a banal citation of site procedure, then I would refer you to Wikipedia's guidelines for behaviour on talk pages – which provide that "all discussion [on user talk pages] should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." Engaging in obvious politicking and asking, in relation to the unblock process, if "anyone wants popcorn" does not improve the encyclopedia – but rather is textbook disruption. Once blocked, Russavia can only use his talk page to appeal his block; since he has chosen not to do so, everything else he was saying is a pointless distraction. I would also add that the notion that a blocked user needs to defame a BLP subject or write a hoax article on their talk page before their talk page access can be revoked reflects an incorrect understanding of the community's usual practice. AGK [•] 11:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE June/July 2013 events

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our June blitz and are about to commence our July backlog elimination drive. The June/July 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

I see you blocked this guy with a check-user. There is another account active that area (automatic revolvers), creating bad quality articles Special:Contributions/Uayoa, and there are more SPAs which are inactive, e.g. Special:Contributions/Uoayo. See User talk:RHaworth for more. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Given that you have not made a very straight-forward accusation of sock-puppetry and there is a lot of behavioural evidence that will need to be examined, best would be for you to open a sock puppet investigation on Uayoa. Regards, AGK [•] 11:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uayoa. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey AGK

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding this edit you made, it was discussed and decided on functionaries-en how to tag the page, and then that decision was upheld by a discussion on-wiki. You have now essentially unilaterally overturned both of those discussions, presumably because of an email from the blocked user himself. What was it that led you to this decision? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I'm confused. The last edit by User:Dennis Brown was restoring the sock tag (which I thought had been removed per the decision, but I guess not)... so what was the "decision"? --Rschen7754 03:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC) The decision was to keep the account tagged. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC) For reference, DanielTom was indefinitely blocked on Commons with email disabled. The only reason he isn't globally locked is because he is not blocked from enwikiquote yet. --Rschen7754 07:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I see a Functionaries-en discussion that reaches consensus that DanielTom should not be unblocked, but I do not see a Functionaries-en or on-site thread that mentions how his userpage should be tagged. Could you please point me to them? AGK [•] 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC) There's one in the last WT:SPI archive. --Rschen7754 11:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I've reverted to the sock tag. Check your email if you want to see why. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I've chatted with deskana about this off wiki. In this case, the sockpuppetry tag itself is causing issues for the user offline - and since it's his real name I'm willing to replace it with a hand-written note as a courtesy. WormTT(talk) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

{{you've got mail}} :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied. AGK [•] 10:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon

I had tried to discuss the issue with the other part, but he refused, as he remained locked in a illogic position (that is, claiming that being on the same row means being allies).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

New article request

Hi AGK,

I have requested the creation of a 'Speechly Bircham' Wikipedia article under the 'notable for-profit companies, businesses & corporations' section. I work for Speechly Bircham, hence requesting the article creation instead of writing it myself. A pop-up tells me that you deleted a previous Speechly Bircham page in 2010 on the grounds that it is not a notable firm. On the 'list of largest UK law firms' Wikipedia page, we sit at number 52, and Lawrence Graham, who sit at number 53, do have a Wikipedia page [1]. To help with its creation, I have included many third party sources in my request. However, I am now concerned that the request may be deleted again. Can you please advise as to whether the request will be accepted and taken through to the next stages of creation?

Lydia draper (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Lydia, you're doing right by not creating the article itself - although I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia where you requested its creation (please tell me you didn't do it anywhere off-Wikipedia!). I personally reviewed the article on Lawrence Graham and cannot fathom for the life of me why that article exists on Wikipedia - we're not a directory of firms, and require very strict notability for any business. Nevertheless, the existence of an article about a competitor does not justify the existence of any other article (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Bwilkins. I created the request before creating a user account (oops!), here it is: [2] I look forward to hearing your thoughts as to whether Speechly Bircham's page will be given the green light. Lydia draper (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a look through the links you provided. "Profiles" are not "mentions" - finalist for a non-notable minor award is not notable - its own website is not usable. A law firm is typically notable when it does something actually notable, for example it defends OJ Simpson, or screws up something so badly it appears in international news. None of the links you provided show anything other than its existence, IMHO. By the way, that list is not a "green light" situation for Wikipedia because we don't work that way - it's a list of "possibly desired articles", which someone might get around to creating someday ... or maybe not. Even if someone tries, there's no guarantee that it will actually survive and become an article. I've written a couple of articles that had been waiting on the "wanted" list for years. IMHO, based on the links you provided AND my own research in journalism databases, there's no notability for the firm that meets Wikipedia's strict requirements ... just like the other firm you mentioned doesn't either, which means that article could be deleted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. Upon further investigation, it seems there are many articles on the list that do not meet the 'notable' criteria [3]. These articles may need to be reviewed? Lydia draper (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Banned & Blocked Orange County editor violating ban?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michel_Thomas#Removal_of_Citation_to_NY_Times_article

Roy Rivenburg lives in or near Yorba Linda, CA, which is the location of the IP address of the editor who wishes to remove a recent NY Times article added to this article on the basis it is "UGC"

NV Researcher (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hello AGK, I saw your comment on the Arbcom Tea Party case [4]. You do know that my blocks were back in 2010 and they weren't for edit problems on Tea Party movement? Also, are you aware that I don't really edit the Tea party movement article and other than a couple of edits in April or so, I have not edited that article since December 2010? I made a visit to the talk page in February 2013 and got caught up in this case while there was apparently quote a row between North8000 and Killer Chihuahua. I've participated in the moderated discussion and followed all the rules there. Would you be kind enough to take a second look at things? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

About your name

I noticed that the connections to a Silicon-controlled rectifier are A, G, and K. 216.11.222.26 (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)