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 20:31, Thursday 12 September 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".

Nrcprm2026 SPI

Thanks for the comment. What is done with behavioral analysis? I don't initiate these SPI's often (only done a few over my 8 years here). I trust in the technical, the relative impossibility that someone from the same ip would do the same things on the same articles. I wish the tools were better, history longer, and that it wasn't such a big deal for the selected admins to check. But when it comes to behavior, it becomes a lot more difficult to show with any certainty that they're the same person. So without direct evidence of the same IP, I figured it was done - he's too good for that. Nrcprm2026 is skilled at sock puppeting - he has conversations with himself, he uses different computers, he uses different accounts at different times, edits a wide range of articles, and he's usually civil but falls into WP:PUSH. He's learned the tricks and is good at evading our flagging methods. At one point, I was debating 4 of his socks at once, which makes working on an encyclopedia extremely difficult. This is all visible from the history of verified socks. So, I'm a bit paranoid because we've been fooled by the same user over and over and over again. He fights to the end saying he's not the same person until checkuser reveals it is - then he's off to create several new accounts which we have to ferret out. It's exhausting and seems pointless. When I see behavior and edits that mimic Nrcprm2026's pattern, it's difficult to not think it's the same person again. If a check can reveal it, awesome - one less sock in his army. It drives me nuts, but I don't want to falsely ban someone based solely because they edit and argue the same. I don't know what to do. Morphh ^(talk) 14:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Morphh: If you aren't sure how to do make a behavioural judgement for a sock puppetry investigation, please revert your archival and leave the investigation in an open or pending state. An administrator with experience in making such judgements will then take care of it. Thanks, AGK [•] 14:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with edit to archive top template

Yo, AGK! I've been seeing an issue with the archive top template, and I think it's happening because of the edit you made to it a few days ago. Basically, you use the first unnamed parameter to serve as a replacement for the word discussion, but the first unnamed parameter is already being used as an alias for the closing rationale (the other name for the parameter is "result"). The use of the unnamed parameter for the result is pretty widespread, which has led to a lot of weird placements of one's closing rationale in the "This <discussion> is closed" bit. Could you take a look and revert or modify the change as necessary, please? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I'm seeing the same thing. See this diff. It added my closing text to the top, very odd stuff. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ТимофейЛееСуда: Having just now noticed AGK's notice that he's out for the weekend, I went ahead and reverted his changes. It should be fixed now; let me know if it keeps happening. As for the changes themselves, I'd imagine they will be fine to reinstate if they are modified to use a named parameter rather than the anonymous one, but I wanted to go for the surer route to make sure nothing else gets messed up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye out. I apparently closed a few things with this issue, and only noticed it when I closed something with a block of text paragraph. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for breaking the template, and thanks for clearing up after me. I did test it, but obviously not thoroughly enough. AGK [•] 14:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate. I'm just glad that we have people like you and Writ Keeper who are smarter than me and can create/fix such things. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor question (I think)

While I realize the case has been withdrawn, I was puzzled by an aspect of this edit, specifically: The community should now review and endorse the indefinite block;. I expected to see something like The community should now review and endorse, modify or reject the indefinite block;

Is it fair of me to impute the added words?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Yes, you can read my comment in that way. I was not necessarily directing the community to endorse the comment, but merely decide whether it should be endorsed. Regards, AGK [•] 14:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Homeontherange

That account doesn't exist, and most of the accounts you blocked are a vandal (probably User:The Bad Tax Man or User:Sunholm) who has claimed to be various other users - some of them had been tagged as sockpuppets of Irate. The IP belongs to LeaseWeb and is almost certainly a proxy, and seems to be related to 198.7.58.96 and 198.7.58.97 both used by the same vandal. User5482, Toronto8793 and Satnav appear to be unrelated users. Peter James (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to see m:Steward requests/Global permissions/2013-10. --Rs chen 7754 20:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the same vandal - compare the request with this edit summary by Canadacrox (who claimed to be Irate. Although the former Homeontherange account here is probably unrelated (edits don't look similar at all), "Homeontherange" on Meta may be - apparently the account was identified as an impostor and blocked. Peter James (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The account did exist, but was renamed; in any case, 'Homeontherange' is the best-known name for this particular soccer. I tagged the sock puppets through the check user interface, rather than manually, because they were

Likely all related (irrespective of whether the underlying IP was an open proxy). If in fact some of the accounts belong to a different sock master, then the tags may be inaccurate but the blocks are sound. I think the best thing to do is leave the tags and blocks alone—unless they are causing confusion, in which case I will happily go back and look at the accounts in more detail. Regards, AGK [•] 14:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's something I hadn't noticed at first: the IP range had been globally blocked and some accounts had been locked[1], including most of those in the category; exceptions are Donagluithan (obviously related[2][3]) and the accounts that I'd mentioned above (behaviourally very different). The identification of the sockpuppets as "Homeontherange" is problematic as the name's still associated with the vanished user. I assume there's a confirmed link to an identified sockpuppet, but the link from there to Homeontherange is probably mistaken, either a WP:DUCK, self-identified[4][5], or was confirmed as one of the accounts on another wiki where the name was used by the vandal, as there's no global account. Peter James (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you blocked..

... A young, self identified young lesbian lady, and probably rather foolish or naive one. I also see why you consider her actions to be harassment, and why you might wonder about her prior (or not) membership of the WP editing community.

Upsetting as it seems to be for the person stating/suffering harassment, is there a way to either give this editor sufficient rope, or to relax your block given some yet-to-be-decided assurances? The reason I ask is that her initial posts under her changed username of Lesbiangirl revealed her to be insular, isolated and depressed or depressive. You have no need to reply to me. Im just asking you to consider it. Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, and these are all fair points. However, this is an editor who, in my view and at the present time, is exerting a rather disruptive influence on the project. If she is experiencing real life difficulty, we should have sincere sympathy – and try to point her to people who can help – but we should not allow her to disruptive edit the project for this reason alone. Regards, AGK [•] 22:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the points you have made. She has made one very pertinent point on her talk page just now (I have tried to give her advice to allow her to reflect on her actions), which is that she is autistic. Even of it does not change your mind, or you would not consider changing your mind, if you have not read WP:AUTISM please take a few minutes to read it. It is likely to have a bearing on the way her behaviour manifested itself, certainly in the past, here. There are, of course, WP:COMPETENCE issues with autism in some, perhaps many, manifestations of it. Fiddle Faddle 22:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware of the ramifications autism can have on a user's behaviour. In this case, the problems with the user are not easily explained or excused by her self-disclosure, nor is the obvious sock puppetry. AGK [•] 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been following the user in question. Without commenting on the block, it seems you should have said more about appealing the block - e.g. mentioned Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Perhaps you could have used a block template. In any case, I have posted the link on her talk page. St Anselm (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you will know, I directed the user to WP:BASC; that is a venue for appealing blocks. AGK [•] 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that page says it is the final body of appeal. Surely you would expect a user to use the "unblock" template first? St Anselm (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the page explicitly says that other avenues must be tried first. So why did you direct the user in question to that page? St Anselm (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the user will claim they have a previous account which they do not wish to disclose on-site. Appealing on-wiki is therefore not a viable option. AGK [•] 23:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well she explicitly denied having a previous account here. On a side note, it is rather interesting that we all believe that wikipedia is so arcane, that if a newbie posts on noticeboards we assume he or she must be a sockpuppet. St Anselm (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the eventual outcome, one can not say with any foreknowledge what the editor will claim. One may make assumptions, but any editor here must not only receive natural justice but be seen to receive natural justice. The first part of any appeal is the unblock template. Now I appreciate that I am not privy to the various things that administrators can see, so I must take whatever I see at face value. And at face value this looks like a foolish editor and a disruptive editor who may have come to her senses. Thus the unblock template and process is the correct initial process. If she passes that and achieves unblocking with the case she puts and the assurances she gives, and agrees to be bound by any conditions set then she may either prove to be a valuable editor or may prove than unblocking was unwise. In the first instance we will all be content, and in the second she will be blocked and there is unlikely ever to be an unblock.

Time and the ability to roll edits back if they are problematic are on Wikipedia's side. There is no problem with any future edits being disruptive because they can be rolled back.

I agree with StAnselm that, from their and my standpoint as non administrators, we can see someone who has denied having prior accounts, and who appears to show contrition and acknowledgement of her transgressions. I see every reason for her to deploy the unblock template and not have this route denied to her, or indeed, to make a simple request when she has formulated it. Will she achieve unblocking? I have no idea. That depends upon the case she makes and the judgment of others better qualified here than I am to make that decision. I am troubled that she has been directed to the final body of appeal as the point of first resort. Fiddle Faddle 00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also ploughed through the whole discussion and associated links, and have given some thought to possible solutions. I appreciate that it did not form any part of the block rationale, but as her sexuality s mentioned in several places in the thread can we stipulate that it has no relevance to her status here? She states that she is autistic, and in my professional opinion her writing style and approach would certainly indicate this diagnosis as being likely. I would, of course, concede that Wikipedia is not designed to provide any form of psychotherapy or support, but we might for our part agree that what would be routinely seen as culpable in the average editor might be treated less severely here. She has given a commitment in her unblock request; what would your view be if the block was shortened to a finite period (say a month) and unblock offered after that with the clear understanding that any further transgression similar to the previous ones would result in an immediate re-instatement of the block without further warning? I will do nothing without consensus agreement.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've seen somewhere between 10-15 User Pages (both of Editors and Admins) who disclose their autism (or Asperger's) and these are all active users. So, autism is already present in the Wikipedia editing community. It's not an excuse but it helps one understand another person's responses and actions. (as Fiddle Faddle points out with WP:AUTISM). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: I wouldn't have been happy with reducing the block to a finite term; in my view, blocks like this need to be permanent until the underlying problems are resolved. Slapping a month-long block onto the account would have been unnecessary, and probably been interpreted as a punitive action. However, as you may have noticed, somebody has accepted her talk page commitment and unblocked her account. This was a sensible decision; I just hope it works out. Thanks, AGK [•] 13:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an (unrelated-to-Lesbiangirl-specifically) discussion of how to best retain constructive editors like User:Lesbiangirl over here -- WT:WER#Wikipedia_and_the_editor_who_is_differently_able. My suggestion was a buddy-system, or more generally some kind of fun-quick-team-editing-kiosk thing (which proved controversial... despite existing WP:ADOPT and similar). As the essay that FiddleFaddle mentioned claims, and as Liz's survey-data above anecdotally proves, wikipedia is fertile ground for boasting a higher-than-one-might-expect percentage of the editor-population. This sort of situation is not likely to be a one-off.

So what to do? Although I disagree about the BASC-shortcut thing, I agree with AGK that WP:NOTTHERAPY, and in particular am adamantly against any special policy-treatment for minority religion-spectrum, minority ethnicity-spectrum, minority sexuality-spectrum, minority autism-spectrum, minority political-spectrum, or whatnot. Wikipedia reflects the mainstream sources in mainspace, and wikipedia respects all editors equally in "editor-space" or whatever you want to call judiciary-block-and-unblock-proceedings. That said, why can we not make wikipedia fun for and friendly to Lesbiangirl in particular, by the straightforward solution of making it fun for and friendly to everybody in general? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@74.192.84.101: I am also against special policy treatment. All I want us to do is to understand what is happening before we get to the point when we need to impose a current policy. It is valid to block an incompetent or disruptive editor, of course it is. But, if their lack of competence or if their disruptive behaviour is caused by something outside their easy control, I hope we can at least handle them well, and try to bring them aboard properly of they are capable of being brought aboard. Fiddle Faddle 13:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File a community discussion on info boxes?

Yo, AGK. As an uninvolved participant in the Arbcom case about info boxes (I provided evidence on it), I've been thinking about this for some time now: the arbitration committee decided that a well-publicized community discussion should be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article. Since you're an Arbcom member, I want to ask your opinion about this: where shall we file this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC is the usual venue; but you may like to look at some of the previous RFCs instigated or suggested by the committee – such contentious or momentous discussions require more preparation than a typical one. Recent ones are those for Jerusalem and for Images of Muhammad. You may want to contact Mackensen; he was involved in one particular aspect of the Infoboxes case, but probably knows more about the issue of actual infoboxes than most people, and may be willing to spare you some thoughts. (I'd like to help you myself but, as a sitting arbitrator, I need to restrain myself from involving myself too much in the issue.) Regards, AGK [•] 12:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'll go ahead and ask and see what can be done. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where, pray tell is the problem?

Curious why you view the link you removed on my talk page as "outing" when the person of concern outed himself in the international press, at least via a weblink? I am concerned because the user who was allegedly outed was himself criticized but not banned when he outed someone else, and recently I saw that the arbs refused to even slightly sanction someone else who unsuccessfully engaged in a blatent attempt to out another editor. Yet even a link to this story is verboten on WP? I'm truly puzzled. The rules don't seem to apply to everyone the same way here, so I'd be curious to see some clarification? I'm not going to insert myself into the middle of the actual dispute, but I thought the piece a good example of the double standard and systemic bias that seems to be increasing on WP. No one wants to be wrongfully outed, but isn't there an exception when they out themselves? Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Hi there. I think I address your questions in my comment here. Regards, AGK [•] 13:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I do see the line, but boy, the line between the theoretical city and foo employment and street and branch of foo is kind of thin in the age of Google. I suppose the extra detail sleuthing bit is stalkeresque; I guess it would creep me out if someone dug that deep into my life just due to a wikipedia dispute (someone outed my name once on-wiki and I freaked pretty good, got all stuff oversighted, yada yada..). Still, kind of wish the guy would redact that street and branch of foo bit because the rest of his essay is really quite spot on about the systemic bias problem around here. I've been kind of troubled lately at how successful bullies are at bullying innocent people for minor missteps; mote in your neighbor's eye, log in your own, that sort of thing. But I guess that's a different problem. Thanks for the explanation. Montanabw^(talk) 17:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User 74.192.84.101

You have blocked the above IP user for one week. Please would you mind explaining why as I cannot figure out the reason for the block. Thanks very much --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the IP's talk page. AGK [•] 15:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, you must have received my morphic alert, thanks. :-) Anthony, appreciate the unblock, sorry about WP:WALLOFTEXT response, at first I assumed your block was somehow arbcom-related. While I've got your ear, appreciate your stance in the arbcom battles about Phil; hope you run again, despite the difficulty of the job. As for your future vandal-fighting efforts, I don't want to discourage you, because that is *also* a thankless job, but please consider opening a talkpage dialog first and then pulling out the ban-hammer only if that human-to-human dialog goes badly. :-) Along these lines, I'll probably be complaining later, through appropriate channels, that the block-message-template-wording is very damaging, and should be rewritten to comply with WP:AGF by assuming the block-action was a false positive (every time! WP:NICE trumps statistical likelihood). See goofy screenshot-prototype here (you can skip the surrounding text-explanations) for my related EditFilter scheme.[6] Even though they only happen one time out of a thousand, that one time matters for WP:RETENTION. Anyhoo, no harm no foul; thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User5482: unblock req

Hi Anthony,

Do you mind taking a looking at this user? He/she has posted an unblock request. I think he/she may have been mistakenly blocked. Is there some other information I'm missing? Elockid ^(Talk) 05:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks Elockid. There have been a lot of false positives with Homeontherange, and I'm beginning to think I will need to go back and look more closely at the sleepers I thought I found. In this case, you can certainly give the appellant the benefit of the doubt. AGK [•] 09:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to avoid further delay, I've just allowed the appeal myself. Hope that's okay. AGK [•] 09:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback - Signpost

{{talkback|Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-11-06/News_and_notes#.22Challenging_Arbcom.27s_authority.22}} Silverseren^C 00:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to check my article

Hello, I am a new user of Wikipedia.Currently, I am working on my article. It had been deleted before, therefore, I am afraid to publish it online without any check.I used to ask another administrator to help me to check, but he was quite busy these day. Could you please help me to my article, I saved in my sandbox page. I wish you could give me some feedback. Thanks in advance! --Clover1991 (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clover, I replied over at your talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It was deleted because it was blatantly promotional, which it is. It was also deleted because other than talking about the company, there was no claim that the company had any significance by Wikipedia standards. It should also have been deleted because it's an obvious copyright infringement (see [7]). It's essentially an extension of the company's website, and it's hard to imagine that you would be able to recreate it without it being deleted again. However, if you want to try, you'd have to find reliable sources that establish notability. I'd also suggest you submit it to WP:AFC so you get feedback from more experienced Wikipedians rather than moving it directly to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's a vendor of someone else's equipment - a car dealer, of sorts. Nothing specifying notability in the least. ES &L 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks-for-your-good-faith-improvements? No try-the-teahouse-for-quick-questions? By the great Jimbo! Ye of little WP:AGF! Twice![8] (At least there was some mention of AfC ... thanks Bbb23 ... qualified by the discouraging if-you-wanna-try-anyways albeit ... and of course, the AfC folks are also very overworked. Not enough WP:RETENTION.)

Besides the military contract, these folks are in charge of some of the maintenance for the "local" Formula One racetrack, and clear the runways at some big airport in Malaysia. Their main deal is with municipal street-sweeping of various local cities. They import from a bunch of different countries; rather than some trivial everyday car dealership, Duromac is more like a boutique exotic ~~sportscar~~ halftrack&streetsweeper dealer, with powerful Malaysian bureaucrats as their clientele.[9]

I mean, sure, it ain't as exciting as Crayon_Shin-chan:_Blitzkrieg!_Pig's_Hoof's_Secret_Mission. (p.s. if you feel the urge to AfD that important-in-Japan page... instead of, say, improving it via direct copy-editing, or at the worst template-tagging it so some Japanese manga specialist can improve it... please first read WP:IMAGINE and maybe also WP:POINT.)

But the Duromac article that Clover is working on sounds like a thriving small biz, well-connected in the world of Malaysian politics, and thus pretty much guaranteed to have at least crossed into WP:NOTEWORTHY status, over on the ACMAT page, or one of the Malaysian cities that put them into the local papers, perhaps. We need somebody that reads the local newspapers and speaks the local lingo, however, to determine whether Noteworthy has crossed over into Notability yet. Somebody? Guess who Clover1991 probably is? Sure, either we need a rewrite, or we need somebody -- perhaps Clover -- to upload some copyright transfer paperwork. Nevertheless, WP:BITE still applies, even stalking the arbcom member's talkpage, my friends. Thou shalt not rubberize pillar four, please. Minnow. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) Simply thank you! (I would use the button, but it doesn't work for IP. Also there's nothing secret here.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative accounts disclosure

The following accounts on Wikipedia are owned or operated by me, though I never use them:

AGKtalk (talk · contribs)
MediationBot (talk · contribs) was created by me, but the password is now known only to User:Anomie, its operator
Agkwiki (talk · contribs)
Anthøny (talk · contribs)
AgK (talk · contribs)
MedCom (talk · contribs)
AGKbot (talk · contribs)
Anthony cfc (talk · contribs)
AGK! (talk · contribs)
Cfc Anthony (talk · contribs)
Puppetcfc (talk · contribs)

I used to operate User:Mediation Committee, a contact account for the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. I didn't register the account, and the ownership passed to the mediator who succeeded me as Chairman.

User:AGK@dewiki and User:Anthony are not me.

AGK [•] 19:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]