User talk:Arcticocean

"First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd. Then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant. Finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim they themselves discovered it." Where this user currently is, the time is 03:52, Tuesday 04 June 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".

GOCE February blitz wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Portal:Channel Islands

Hi AGK, please could you give me some comments on the peer review here? Thanks, Matty.007 11:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand if you don't want to, but if you don't please can you tell me? Thanks, Matty.007 19:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: Sorry for the delay. I have almost zero spare time for content at the moment, so I'll have to pass this onto someone else. If you don't find someone to review the Portal in the next few weeks, send me another message and I'll make a special effort to devote some time to it. Regards, AGK [•] 22:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. Matty.007 19:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

WB appeal and other related matters

The Committee takes a great deal of unfair criticism, much of it totally detached from reality. However, this criticism is partially avoidable. Many members of the community dislike secret lists and fora. The parliaments, congresses, and courts of law around the world manage to conduct most business in public, with very limited exceptions for state secrets. If the Committee restricted arbwiki and mailing list discussion to ONLY those parts of cases which genuinely REQUIRE confidentiality, and did much of the other "formulation" and "deliberation" work on-wiki, this would decrease the sekrit conspiracy criticisms. I believe if the community had to vote on the proposition: "NO arbitration business or discussion may be conducted in private, OTHER than individual messages wherein provable and unavoidable personal information sharing must occur" it would experience wide support. Open meeting laws regarding municipal councils in most of the U.S. actually require ALL conversations to occur in public - for a majority of commissioners to meet privately would be illegal in some cases - this due to the fact that public scrutiny is desired by many. Now this may sound silly to you, but I in good faith suggest that this is one major reason you get the bizarre anti-Committee backlash on many occasions. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, "political pressure" can be read as "responsive to the electorate," depending on what side of any given issue a person stands on. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

50.45.159.150, I think it is unlikely for the Arbitration Committee to rewrite its policies based on your suggestion. If you are seeking such a substantial change, I think you should go to the WP:Village Pump and get support for your idea there. If it does have the potential to get widespread support, you can post your proposal at WP:VPR and get some feedback. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

IP, Liz has it exactly right here. I take your points in general, but do not agree with how you are trying to apply them to the case in question. AGK [•] 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit

Hello, AGK,
Would it be possible for you to remove the {{procedural policy}} template from your page User:AGK/CU? Right now, your user page shows up in Category:Wikipedia policies as being a policy page. The template inserts categories on to pages they are used automatically so the only solutions are editing the template or removing the template from the page. Since it's a policy template used on other pages where that is a valid category, I think it would be simpler to remove the template tag from your page.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: Done. AGK [•] 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks! I'm just trying to organize some categories. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Smell test

AGK, would you please check out the following IPs? The long history of editing on multiple, related IPs seems really unusual to me.

Gospel of Matthew article 101.119.15.181 diff; 101.119.14.65 diff; 101.119.15.127 diff; 101.119.15.157 diff; 101.119.15.46 diff; 101.119.14.74 diff; 101.119.15.125 diff; 101.119.14.210 diff1, diff2;

Gospel of Matthew talk page 101.119.14.181 diff; 101.119.15.210 diff1, diff2; 101.119.14.122 diff;

Gospel of Matthew mediation page and mediator's talk page 101.119.14.82 diff; 101.119.15.65 diff1, diff2

The IP complained about being excluded from mediation and recently trouted the nominator of a AfD. That's not the type of behavior one would expect from a new or inexperienced user. Something doesn't pass the smell test. Is this, perhaps, a banned or vanished user? Ignocrates (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, these IPs from recent edits which don't involve the Gospel of Matthew: 101.119.14.172, 101.119.14.81, 101.119.15.81, 101.119.15.2, 101.119.14.120, 101.119.15.102. They are obviously coming from the same geographical location. Ignocrates (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ignocrates. Arbitrators usually don't enforce policy on topic areas that the committee have ruled on (and these articles presumably tie in with the Ebionites case). Therefore, you'll need to ask a community checkuser to look at these IP edits. Sorry! AGK [•] 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Message from the clever bishbot

Hi, Anthony. Nina Green has been blocked from editing her talkpage, so it might be better not to post anything remotely argumentative on it (however justified). Especially not anything that contains a question to her (however rhetorical). Bishonen | talk 22:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

I see that now, thanks. I will leave my comment in place, as anybody reading that section (if any are) should know the sentence I picked up on is false. AGK [•] 23:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

If ArbCom continue to archive discussion so quickly (like the one I was recently involved in) and so, both by archiving and other methods, give the impression that ArbCom isn't interested in any comments that don't broadly agree with their view of DS and instead only tinkle around the edges, then I see absolutely no point in commenting. How ArbCom can think it's appropriate to control a discussion like this in which they are all so obviously involved is quite beyond me. In any other venue, ANI, RfC etc etc the people that came up with a new proposal and who in the past played a large part in implementing the previous version would never be allowed to close discussions and determine consensus yet ArbCom seem quite happy to do both here. Dpmuk (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I must have missed that discussion. Exactly what do you want to reply to, and why do you think it warrants special consideration?

I do not like your suggestion that the committee is "involved", and am not sure you understand the implications of your statement – or why it is so illogical. AGK [•] 00:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should it need to warrant special consideration. It's rude to archive any discussion while it is still taking place and hasn't got out of hand - I had replied to and pinged Roger Davis and why I accept his reply may have been they did not want to discuss things further archiving the discussion discussion didn't even allow that reply. Could you explain to me why you think it should it should need special consideration?

I admit I have a very low opinion of how ArbCom operates - although that does not necessarily extend to the people on it - and maybe I let that show through a bit too much but I'm always open to discussion. Telling me you don't like my suggestion - without telling me why, and telling my you don't think I understand the implications - again without telling me why, does not, however, help me understand things or improve my opinion. Dpmuk (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping in case you missed my reply. Dpmuk (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dpmuk: Sorry, I'm rather tied up with the below and with R.L. I'll try to get back to this discussion in the next couple of days; if I forget to, feel free to ping me again. Regards, AGK [•] 22:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. And just to be clear so we don't get off on the wrong foot I'm arguing for ArbCom to take your case, or at least make a motion, largely because of how it may appear like favouritism if they don't and because of your privileged position as an Arb - I don't believe you should be held to any special standard but also thinks your position will have too significant an effect on any community discussion or action for the community to be able to act effectively and fairly. Personally you overstepped my line of where involved is but I will admit that there now seems to be enough doubt that your position isn't unreasonable. Dpmuk (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You

Back the fuck off Colonel Warden's talk. Nobody on the ground really care about these notifications, they are really about the wonder of you. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahem

AGK, if someone reverted me, then I'd not block them as I become involved. So I suggest rather unequivocally that you revert your block now and open it up for discussion. It might be that Ceoil has been told by Warden he does not lke these notifications, I don't know. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you've ignored the abusive posts on my talk page and asked why I blocked the user for them. Does that seem sensible to you?

If another administrator has a problem with the block, they are free to amend or remove it. Otherwise, the basis for this block is fairly obvious – the user is making unauthorised reverts to another user's talk page, and being abusive in the process. AGK [•] 11:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have seen the posts - that's the point. They're made to you - i.e. you're then involved. If someone called me a raving cunt/whatever, then that is me and them as editors. It's not my place to block them for that. Someone neutral needs to - furthermore, you don't know the reverts are unauthorised. You might not be privy to private communications - maybe they are friends off-wiki, who knows, but I'd pause before assuming that. And I'd certainly ask and comment before blocking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion is important in the cogwheels of arbitration and wikipedia, but I'd hesitate before according it any more status than many others. So would assume that the notification is one by an editor to another editor who has previously commented on a previous version and might be interested in a current one? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't about the discussion. It's about the unexplained, repeated reverts and the abusive messages being left all over the place. WP:SYSOP#Involved admins: In straightforward cases (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. AGK [•] 11:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Listen, if you want to take over the block and make enquiries with Ceoil, feel free to do so. If you want to remove the block while you make enquiries, feel free to do so as well. I always allow my blocks to be overturned by another sysop (checkuser blocks, etc. aside). Hopefully Ceoil will think twice about editing so disruptively, though I don't hold out too much hope… AGK [•] 11:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The appearance is of someone who let a couple of comments get under their skin and then retaliated by blocking (note the word "appearance" not "actuality" as I am not a mindreader). We need as much as possible for this place to be a level playing field and maintain some semblance of egalitarianism. This block really really undermines that. The only person this was unequivocally disruptive to is you. I suspect Colonel Warden will see this discussion somewhere and will certainly see it in his edit history. In an ideal world, we'd none of us lose our tempers or get pig-headed over things, but we're not. Ceoil spends a great deal of time editing cooperatively and enthusiastically with a bunch of other editors. This is one of the biggest problems with arbs who don't do much content in that this aspect doesn't get seen if their editing time gets swallowed up in arbitration. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking...I will try and email Ceoil too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Anthony, I have refactored the discussion at ANI at Sandstein's suggestion, to separate the voting from the discussion. I wasn't sure if you had intended your comment as a !vote, so I put it under the discussion section. If this was not your intention, feel free to move it. [1].

I hope you understand that I am seeking a way to return to editing, for myself and the others. It is not to the benefit of the project to have this kind of ill will go on for so long, not to mention the perception of unfairness on the part of the ArbCom. Surely there is some solution that would respect all parties. —Neotarf (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that the thread has been closed, but I would prefer you to not move my comments in the future. I quite understand what you are seeking; you explained it in detail at the thread in question. Thank you, AGK [•] 22:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use of admin tools by AGK and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Sorry, I this is just too out-of-process to ignore - I don't hold any ill-feelings but have been criticised in the past for not being more open/up front. Everything depends on a scrupulously honest system to restore faith in the committee, adminship, etc. If I am wrong, so be it, I don't hold it against anyone.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I have posted the statement you sent to the clerks' mailing list on the case request. Please do make a full statement when you have a chance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: Given that you remarked above that my action is indicative of one of the biggest problems with arbs who don't do much content, I think you rather speak for yourself when you say "I don't hold any ill-feelings". I am more or less appalled at how far, and quickly, you escalated this matter; and your explanations as to why we needed arbitration have seemed utterly groundless. Colour me disappointed. AGK [•] 01:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How about you read your own guidelines and drop the sanctimonious tone? Or are your admin tools different to other admins? Here's the thing - this edit of yours right here is one made by an editor with an editor hat on. Hence a revert means a difference of opinion with another editor, or do you not get that or do you somehow think your edits have special status? I wasn't going to get it reviewed but upon reviewing it, it seemed so far out of kilter with what I'd do I thought it needed to be logged somewhere, especially as the block came some hours after the original incident and you seem to have no insight into what was wrong with the action in the first place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my tone for a second time; for the record, now I am annoyed. (Maybe I need to work on my delivery. Apparently I seem annoyed when I'm amused, and preachy when I'm annoyed.)

You treated my administrator tools as different to everyone else's. You escalated one sysop action directly to arbitration, not me. You even did so on the back of a sly reference to "arbs who don't do content". How is this supposed to appear, do you think? I'm not trying to lecture, prove myself right, or drive a wedge between us; I'm trying to follow why you reacted to the Ceoil situation in the way you did. I was going to ask here that you, coherently, explain why you rushed this to arbitration. But I suspect it's going to do nobody any favours to keep talking about this, so if you want to move on and do other things, I'm happy to do so too. Or we can debate this some more – your call. AGK [•] 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh - I agree that it appears we both have fixed views on this and that I fear we'll go round in circles so am happy to agree to disagree and pursue more productive edits elsewhere. I'll explain it more easily over a few beers if I make it to wikimania (which I doubt) or some other time - we did a whirlwind London-Bradford-Borders-Aberdeen-Peebles-Hadrians Wall-Lakes District-Southport circuit several months ago.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Things

For what its worth, I think you were right to block on prevantative grounds. I apologised to you on my talk, and say it again here. I've no excuse except that I misunderstood (and to compond it all didnt look further after you reverted), and was being, obviously, very hot-headed indeed. So, well, sorry :( Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Thanks very much for explaining your reverts, and for being so gracious about my block. Don't worry about misunderstanding my original post; we all misread things from time to time. I accept your apology without reservation. Hopefully, with the arbitration request declined, this is now water under the bridge :-). With best wishes, AGK [•] 00:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (Use of admin tools by AGK) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee.

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your ANI comment

Virtually every clause of this is problematic. I would have responded to it there but did not see it until after the request closed. As the dispute is not (quite) resolved yet, this is probably still worth addressing.

• 'I am always suspicious when a proposal of "false accusations against the four editors A, B, C, and D" is supported from the beginning by editors A and B.' That does not describe the situation and I'm hard pressed to make sense of it even if I did. Editors A-C have resigned, and D doesn't edit much any more All four have been consistent on what the issue is and what the remedy is. Neotarf (A) came back to the project to see one last time about resolving this, and opened the ANI case. I (B) did likewise after being notified that this issue was under discussion. C (Noetica) did not, and is unlikely to ever come back. D (OhConfucius) agrees with us, in no uncertain terms. There is no lack of agreement, no A and B speaking for C and D who don't agree scenario. Even if only two editors chose to comment, we've been treated as a "class" the entire time this dispute has existed, so it would not be inappropriate for us to continue to suggest remedies that would also serve the interests of any "missing" party. If you want a direct quote from Noetica, the only missing party, I can forward one in e-mail, but it's not helpful here, just a call for a particular, obvious desysoping.
• 'For context, these editors have been pushing for this to happen for months now.' Well, yes. You and the rest of the ArbCom failed to resolve this problem and then suggested (as summarized at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 14#Summary of responses) radically different venues in which the issue could be appealed, so we've be been, slowly, calmly, procedurally trying them. You (ArbCom individually or collectively) cannot reasonably suggest forums for appeal and then get angry with us for appealing to those forums!
• 'It looks like they have seized this opportunity, which is alarming.' That's completely nonsensical. Nothing was "siezed". Neotarf made an opportunity, at ArbCom's own (internally confused as to where) effective suggestion. The accusations Sandstein attached to the ARBATC notification log, which should instead have neutrally recorded the notice/warning, is an "AE measure" as you all phrased it, and even you personally suggested two different venues of appeal! There is nothing "alarming" about any of this other than that ArbCom could take over an entire year to come up with a remedy for blatant false accusations without proof by an admin claiming to be warning us about making false accusations without proof. It's boggles the mind that this wasn't fixed in one day not one year.
• 'While I sympathise with SMcCandlish's frustration at being warned way-back-when,' You do not seem to sympathize with anyone but Sandstein, and certainly do not even understand the nature of the dispute at all, even after all this time. It is not about "frustration at being warned", it's about the ethical unacceptability of being falsely accused and having that false accusation still boldly published and maintained today. Time does not, ever, fix that, but only make it worse unless and until that accusation is no longer being promulgated. This is not "frustration"; it's justifiable outrage at being accused without proof (i.e. personally attacked) by an admin acting under color of not just administrative authority but ArbCom delegated "enforcement" authority, only to have both the admin and ArbCom fail to correct the situation after we conclusively prove that the admin didn't even have the faintest clue was going on, and inform both him and ArbCom what was really happening, and prove that too. He had no idea who the AE-filing user was, and that'd he'd just come from an AN case that had gone poorly for him and an RFC/U that had gone even worse for him, to make retaliatory trouble about the same rehash in front of a new WP:PARENT. But it's as if the truth just does not matter. It's somehow much more important to make Sandstein feel free from ever being criticized or questioned.
• I recommend the community dismiss this request. (This comment made in my capacity as an individual arb, and not for the committee.) Which is a highly questionable thing to do in that role. It's like a Supreme Court justice popping into the appellate court and telling them how they should decide a case, but just, you know, making it a suggestion, not an official instruction from the Court. Not sure I would have had such a strong objection if you'd said "as an individual editor, and not for the committee".

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: If you are going to nit-pick at my comments, I would prefer you at least do it accurately!

• Inadvertently, you have offered a proof of my A, B, C, D analogy. The proposal about editors A through D was supported by editors A and B. That's all I was saying. I'm not sure why you interpreted my comment to mean I thought you were falsely claiming to speak on behalf of C and D.
• You have been pushing for this for months. The point, which was perhaps too subtly made, is that you are pushing for something that cannot happen. Awareness cannot be revoked or withdrawn in any meaningful sense: you cannot be made unaware. In better news, the DS review has provided for all previous warnings to be treated as blameless "alerts" (and to automatically expire after a year, in most cases). That kind of wholesale conversion is acceptable; cherry-picked conversions or appeals are unacceptable.
• You are correct that the opportunity was created, not seized. That does not mean it was sensible to create it, but this is a separate question.
• This very lengthy comment is irrelevant. Whether you believe it or not, I do sympathise. (Why else would I have invested so much time in conducting the DS review, if I didn't care about the injustices of the current system?)
• Irrelevant.

AGK [•] 13:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• The A-B-C-D stuff is moot. All four of the parties affected by the accusations in question have spoken at the ongoing ARCA request, even Noetica. I never claimed to be representing anyone, nor did anyone else.
• The fact that the issue comes up again (opened by someone else, and now again by someone else, a third party) after resolution fails to materialize isn't evidence that we need to shut up and go away, it's evidence of an outstanding issue that needs to be resolved, even if you don't see what the big deal is. I've bothered coming back to try to resolve it because I finally see the hope that it can happen. Salvio, et al., clearly see that it needs to be resolved and can be resolved easily. I do not know why you insist this dispute has anything to do with being made "unaware" of anything. It never has. It is about a factually false accusation made under color of admin authority. It was even explicitly my idea to simply replace Sandstein's aggressive and accusatory, unjustifiable log entry with a neutral one, specifically so there could be no question of any sort of any "un-notifying" thing. No one is appealing the fact that Sandstein notified them of ARBATC and its DS remedies.

  Neotarf's position seems to be that the log entries themselves may be problematic, which still isn't anything to do with whether someone's been notified of something, only with whether, regardless of intent, there is something punitive about the DS logs themselves and the entries on them. I think Neotarf would argue that there must be, or you wouldn't be trying to reform DS. :-) Regardless, my concerns and reasoning are severable from that user's, and I know as do you that a request to blank us out of the log will go nowhere. The ARCA filing by NE Ent at least gets at all this more clearly than Neotarf's ANI. It's all about the accusation in the logged diff, nothing to do with the fact of a notification which is all that need be logged, if anything should be logged at all. (A separate case can be made that the log is not serving its purpose, is being abused, and is ridiculously incomplete anyway. I trust that you are correct that the DS reform will solve these problems.)

• I'll take your sympathy at face value, and thank you for it. But only you and Sandstein persist in this argument that we're trying to be "un-notified". Even after why this has nothing to do with "un-notification" is explained to you again, you return right back to that position. It's hardly "irrelevant". It's really problematic from the vantage-point of someone seeking resolution to an extant long-standing problem that doesn't match your expectations of what the issue "should be".

— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Help regarding WP:ARBEURO and reverts on an article on that topic

I need help regarding WP:ARBEURO and an article on that subject: Sevastopol. I performed substantial changes to the article based on WP:BEBOLD [2] but they got reverted on the claim that they "violate" WP:NPOV [3]. I reverted the person back [4] as the content is referenced and actually helps the article to adhere to NPOV rather than be lopsided towards a particular point of view. The problem is that the person then reverted me back again.[5] I fear that if I revert him back that I might violate WP:1RR as WP:ARBEURO applies to the article.

Could you please have a look at the history of the article when the reverts where performed, the discussion at the person's talk page which he closes [6] even though he requested contact him there rather than on the article [7] and the ongoing discussion at the article's talk page?

I truly believe that this is a strategic WP:STONEWALL as I'm not able to insert this content unless I have the "approval" of this person or until "there is a discussion about it"; which would effectively allow his POV to remain on the article while the discussion is ongoing (which might last days).

Not only that, but he keeps reverting any change made by other users that attempt to explain that Sevastopol is currently under dispute. I believe this is siding too closely to WP:OWN.

I'm not seeking any sanctions. I just want the content to be inserted and worked on collaboratively with tags and what not, rather than a full revert that removed a big chunk of new content. Perhaps the user needs to be reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative work and that full reverts are harmful. That tagging is always a better solution than applying full reverts.

Hope you are doing well.

Best regards,

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ahnoneemoos: Thanks for your questions, and for proceeding cautiously with this dispute. However, I think you need to ask a non-arbitrator administrator for guidance. You can select an administrator with enforcement experience from the recent complaints at WP:AE; or you can put out a general request for guidance at WP:ANI. Due to my role on the committee this year, I unfortunately can't offer advice about specific disputes, in case they subsequently come to the committee. AGK [•] 12:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mac

AGK, I think it's a particular double-pressing of ?adjacent keys that renders that little black question-mark. I occasionally get it.

Keep up your good work on the DS reforms. Tony (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Annoying. (And thanks!) AGK [•] 16:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Email

I've sent an email to arbcom-l which is waiting for moderator approval. --Pine^✉ 07:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Moderated through, with apologies for the delay. AGK [•] 23:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

UTRS

With respect to our discussion here, I point out that UTRS has collapsed. It's not surprising to me: as much as people think I enjoy being nasty, I found sending e-mail after e-mail that said "no, your block is valid and your block will remain in place -- please go away" depressing.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've flipped yes to no at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System/on, as UTRS is still down.

@Kww: I know the feeling, having sent out my fair share of Declines. People whose appeal was turned down at the {{unblock}} stage are unlikely to receive an unconditional pardon at UTRS. The result is that almost every appeal is unsuccessful. I wonder whether having multiple stages of appealing a Wikipedia block just gives false hope to appellants. Operating multiple stages comes at an enormous cost of volunteer time, yet it might be against us: by having a long appeals process, we make this more than just a website. We turn block appeals into a mini-legal process that people should get worked up about. Maybe it's for the best that UTRS is offline...

If the process stays offline, I'll discuss with the rest of BASC how we should proceed. Thanks very much for the heads-up. AGK [•] 23:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Removed. Banned means banned. AGK [•] 22:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about UTRS, but it just took me and three other parties over a year, and numerous appeals, to get even 1/3 of the resolution we were seeking to something that should not have happened in the first place and should have been unconditionally and completely fixed the very first day after it did, and curtailed from happening again. I have no opinion really about UTRS in and of itself, or blocks and unblock requests, but the idea that having a stepwise appeal process on WP generally does nothing but give false hope isn't tenable. I'm sure it is administratively less efficient, but that's part of the point: It shouldn't be a carefree matter to do negative, much less reputation-damaging, things to other editors here under color of administrative power, and a lot of admins forget this. If you feel that UTRS is a waste of time, I'll take your word for it, but the ability to take our case to ARCA (again) after buck-passing and outright rejection at other venues of appeal is the only reason I'm back and editing again instead of finally exercising right-to-vanish, which I was prepared to do if the ARBATC log wasn't at least undiffed to stop accusing us without evidence of "continued misconduct". If admins censoring people off the system is taking up so much time and causing so much post-sanction strife that the appeals process bogs down and collapses, it's obviously time to rethink the hammer approach to dispute resolution and community administration, not time to make it harder to appeal questionable hammerblows to the head.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ^{^})≼  14:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) UTRS is back online. --Rschen7754 22:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Attack page creator

I tagged Harmons Hands as an attack page, and then noticed User talk:HarmonsHands#Early History repeats the same text. Not sure if the attack text can just be removed or needs to be suppressed? Also not sure how negative or positive their other deleted article was: Wesley James Beck (the two attack pages trash this guy). INeverCry 23:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the talk page section looked like more of the same. I've removed the section, and RevDeleted the two revisions that contained the offending content. (Suppression isn't usually used for stuff like this, but RevDel. is definitely appropriate.) If this guy fails to heed your warning, let an administrator know because he will need to be blocked without further delay. AGK [•] 00:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll keep a look out. The messed up thing is that the username itself is part of the attack, since it was all about handjobs. INeverCry 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of Pliny's letters to Trajan

I, too, would like a citation for your addition here, if only so that the ugly tag won't linger around there indefinitely.

Also, "one of the only" strikes me as stylistically poor, even illogical. If it's "one of", it's not "the only", so either it's "the only" or "one of the few". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Hi. What do you mean by "I, too"? Nobody else has queried that change directly with me. For sourcing, see Richards, J. (ed.), Pliny the Younger (subscription required) in the ODCW (2012):

The tenth bk. of letters contains all of Pliny's correspondence with Trajan. … The provincial letters are the only such dossier surviving entire, and are a major source for understanding Roman provincial government.

I probably dithered between "the only" and "one of the few". Feel free to edit for style. Regards, AGK [•] 22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You've Got Mail.

Hello, Arcticocean. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—Blurred Lines 14:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)