User talk:Arcticocean

"If it is not right, do not do it, if it is not true, do not say it."

Where this user currently is, the time is 20:24, Monday 03 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".

Template:Ds/editnotice

Have you had a chance to have a look at my changes (see this for more). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I got the ping you sent me yesterday, but forgot to look, sorry. Checking the template now, everything looks good (and I like that it now uses the standard editnotice format). I'm going to do a huge sweep of all the AE templates before the new DS alert template goes live, and during that I'll catch any minor bugs you've introduced, but everything looks fine so far! Don't hesitate to make further tweaks and improvements, if you think of any, and particularly to that edit notice template, to which I've paid the least attention so far. Thanks, AGK [•] 13:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I noticed the switch for 1RR or custom sanction isn't working any ideas what's wrong with it?

Also re the tracking templates, I can't see a reason for it to be subst'd so are they necessary anymore, especially given the category? Re the categories if we do change Ds/talk notice as below then we could always create one for editnotice DS notice and another for editnotice DS sanction (which would use useful on it's own).

The other think I was thinking of was changing the editnotice function of {{Ds/talk notice}} to being a notification that DS is in affect rather than it's current use of alerting people to sanctions in affect. I'd rather do it now while it's only got a couple of uses, but obviously I need Template:Ds/editnotice to working first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your code errors, so the 1RR switch is working now. Neither can I see a reason for the template to be substituted, but in my experience people sometimes tend to substitute anyway (probably out of habit).

To be clear, do you want talk notice to say "Discretionary sanctions are in effect for this topic" and edit notice to say "Discretionary sanctions have been used to create a blanket sanction on this article, and you need to adhere to that"? If so, I'd be inclined to agree that is a sensible distinction to make. At the moment, the two templates seem to be the same thing, which isn't ideal. We could maybe merge them both into the same template, anyway, and make the distinction through a parameter like |special sanction=1RR. AGK [•] 16:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good point, but the categories will still work then (and that's closer to be in line with how the article sanctions and probation work now). But it doesn't really matter that much.

I think it'd be better to have two templates, one for "Discretionary sanctions are in effect for this topic" and one for "Discretionary sanctions have been used to create a blanket sanction on this article, and you need to adhere to that, plus you can be sanctioned as an individual" both templates can be used in both an editnotice and any talk page. This is what I wrote before summarised, so might provide some more info on my thinking:

/talk notice will for DS are in operation for this and all related pages. It has brief and long versions with an automatic switch which chooses whether to use Template:Editnotice or Template:Tmbox (Tmbox with |style=content so it gets a nice yellow outline?). So all you need to do is define the topic select choose |style=brief (#default) or long and place it on either a talk page or an editnotice (which it'll detect and trigger the appropriate template). I'd also suggest a possible rename to /page notice so it's clearer that it can be used on any page - doesn't really matter that much.
/editnotice could be changed (and renamed, /page sanction maybe) so that it can be used to tell editors that a sanction applies to the article and that DS can also be used on individuals. Perhaps an auto switch for both talk page usage and so it calls Template:Editnotice (current design) when used in a subpage of Template:Editnotices? Is there a way for the sanctioning admin to be able to set an expiry date with the talk page version (I had a quick look and I couldn't figure out how Template:Editnotice did it)?

Those changes would change how both templates operate so it might be too late (though from what I can gather /talk notice is only used in three or four editnotice versions at the moment so shouldn't be too hard to change). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping, any thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Qjahid / Usaeedi

Greetings, i noticed you were one of the current arbitrators in WP:CheckUser, so if it doesn't bother you, can you tell me where and how can i open a sock puppetry investigation? I also wanted to know if the following case is worthy and would be taken into consideration:
I have come to believe that User:Qjahid is using User:Usaeedi as a sockpuppet. The reason to doubt so was when i noticed Qjahid's entry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Revolution of 2013 where he stated that he was a contributor to "ps.wikipedia.org" so i decided to take a look at their global account manager and it appears this user made zero contributions to the Urdu Wikipedia unlike their claim. I then decided to take a look at Usaeedi's contributions where i noticed they have something in common with Qjahid (Afghanistan), but that's not the case. I then checked their global account manager and it turns out this user made 22 contributions to the Urdu Wikipedia. Usaeedi has never made any contribution to the events related to the Egyptian Revolution of 2013 or the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. Their only Egypt-related contribution was in the AfD nomination of Egyptian Revolution of 2013 just minutes after Qjahid's entry where they both voted for the same thing. I would be thankful if you take this matter into consideration as it sounds more than fishy to me. Thank you for your time and sorry to bother. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened an investigation here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. Yes, that venue is the correct place to open a sock puppetry investigation. Regards, AGK [•] 22:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should i notify other admins of this investigation? Because if sockpuppetry is confirmed, this would affect a voting process in a current AfD nomination which is serious business. I opened the investigation 3 days ago and i also requested for CheckUser but no one has responded so far. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best just to wait for somebody to attend to the investigation. SPI is not a quick process, simply due to manpower constraints. AGK [•] 11:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even in case of a current AfD nomination with 3 days left?

Also, should i notify the user in question? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid so, yes. Notifying is optional. AGK [•] 23:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

When did UTRS become a mandatory step on the way to BASC?—Kww(talk) 18:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: In 2012, though WP:BASC was not updated to reflect this until March 2013. I can confirm that the version of WP:BLOCK you restored is inaccurate, and I'd guess it is unfortunately responsible for us having to turn away at least one appellant each month because they failed to exhaust the available avenues of community appeal. Regards, AGK [•] 22:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does UTRS notify users of BASC when they decline an unblock request? NE Ent 22:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: ~~No,~~ but we arbitrators routinely search for UTRS appeals by new appellants, and some appellants forward the UTRS decision e-mail straight to us. Also, the UTRS standard decline message contains instructions on making a final appeal to BASC. AGK [•] 22:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you just said "no" and "yes" in the same sentence ... seems like if we're confident a UTRS decline will include a reference to BASC, the blocking policy page is good as is; otherwise we should mention BASC for declined UTRS unblock requests. NE Ent 23:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely misread your question. The answer is yes (struck through above to reflect this). UTRS definitely does point people to BASC when their appeal is declined. You should want to keep them away from BASC for as long as possible: at best, we take a week to even look at appeals. AGK [•] 23:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated {{uw-block}} to WP:Appealing a block to reflect going through UTRS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, all. AGK [•] 12:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, when idly following the links, I noticed that Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Other methods of appeal isn't quite correct. Procedurally, Procedurally, BASC only hears community bans. ArbCom bans are heard by the full committee (not BASC). Roger Davies ^talk

That's what I thought, however after I looked through WP:ArbCom and WP:BASC the only reference to ban appeals I could was directing them to BASC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied WP:AC up a bit to make the distinctions clearer. I'll probably clarify this in the DS review too. I'll leave someone else to do the BASC page. Roger Davies ^talk 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight Page Protection

Hi Anthony,

I think you may have made a small mistake when protecting the oversight page. You used template protection, which I believe only has consensus to be used on templates and modules. Best, Mike V • Talk 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: I did indeed, by misclicking in the 'edit protection' options. I've now corrected this. Thanks for letting me know! AGK [•] 22:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have made a further error, AGK. There is no reason for that page to be fully protected, and I'm not even seeing a particularly strong reason to semi-protect. I'm also trying to make sense of your edit summary; I can't see any example of anyone requesting oversight/suppression on Wikipedia:Oversight in the last 4 years. During that same 4-year period, I could only identify 3 vandalism edits, and a very large number of positive and useful editing by community members. The policy belongs to the community, not the administrators, as long as it remains within the bounds of the overarching WMF policy. I'm not thrilled with the template: the oversight and checkuser lists were often updated by stewards, some of whom may not be autoconfirmed, but I can see a great deal of effort went into creating it, so I'll not press on that point. Risker (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards can actually edit fullprotected pages anywhere. --Rs chen 7754 01:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While technically true, they shouldn't be using global rights here with very limited exceptions. That would include editing through full or semi-protection. Nonetheless, this is about the indefinite full protection of Wikipedia:Oversight, a community policy that has no significant history of vandalism or other misuse. There are an awful lot of policies that are more significantly affected by these problems, and they're pretty much all semi-protected; I'm not finding any that are full-protected though I might have missed one. Risker (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Risker said. Per WP:PGCHANGE and WP:PGBOLD, policy pages can, and often, editable by the community. (I couldn't very well have reverted [1] Kww's revert of your edit on blocking policy if it was full protected, now could I?) The usual place for misplaced oversight requests is ANI, and obviously it's unworkable to fpp that. NE Ent 02:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The reason for protecting is actually given in the edit summary, so these are the same complaint. Plainly, someone will eventually make a misdirected request on this page, so it does require some degree of protection. However, that person is probably going to be a newbie, so I have reduced the protection to semi. (The page has been semi-protected since 2009, so this is merely a return to the status quo.) Now any established community member can edit the policy. You may be correct that full-protection was probably overkill. Most auto confirmed editors would not make a RFO at the OS policy page.

As the three lists of functionaries are duplicative (and nearly identical), it was an utter make-work to have them in three places. The point about {{functionaries}} is not worth pressing for an entirely different reason: not because effort went into making it, but because it will save effort in future. These silly lists are just one more piece of bureaucracy to worry about, but at least now they're easier to update. Thanks, AGK [•] 12:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have never understood this overwhelming desire to have oversighters and checkusers categorized and subcategorized; however, I remember when I floated the trial balloon around 3-4 years ago to just use the same autogenerated list that exists at m:Oversight policy, one would have thought I was proposing to sacrifice everyone's firstborn. If you're serious about making an effort to reduce bureaucracy, that would be a really obvious step; if we used that, nobody would have to bother updating anything but the actual functionaries page, and it would always be accurate within the few hours it took to work through the job queue. I'm fine with semi on Wikipedia:Oversight, more as a general philosophy that policy pages shouldn't be that easily subject to vandalism, although I still think your edit summary is a bit OTT since we've not had any situation in years where someone's tried to make an oversight request on that page. And after a few copy edits, if someone is clueless enough to make such a request there, they're not going to be looking at your edit summary. The information's getting lost in the edit window, as well: there are two edit notices plus the protection notice, which just becomes invisible clutter. Probably worth trying to prune that. Risker (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The categorisation has an added downside: it prioritises arbitrators over community oversighters, despite the fact that some arbitrators are complete amateurs with one or both tools. I know this because I seem to receive more misguided, public requests for suppression on my talk page than anyone else. This is surely because I'm listed as the first oversighter, due to alphabetisation and the arbitrators' top billing. I'm also inclined to prune the lists, and see how it works for a few months.

I don't think m:Oversight_policy's list of users is automatically produced, though it'd be great if it were. AGK [•] 14:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who updates the page on Meta regularly, it's not.

--Rs chen 7754 17:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DS query

Under the current DS system, can non-admins warn and log DS warnings? (I thought the answer was "no," but I'm seeing folks say its okay for non-admins to do that). NE Ent 22:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: Yes, they can. Originally, the convention was that warnings (and logging of warnings) was reserved for administrators. One day, somebody realised the DS standard remedy language didn't reserve these tasks for administrators, and from then it's been open to anyone (anonymous editors included, in theory). It's fairly accepted practice these days, though it doesn't happen terribly often. AGK [•] 23:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks. Glad ya'll are working on fixing that (DS wording/policy), then. NE Ent 23:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March GOCE copyedit drive

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors

The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Message box

Hi Anthony, hope things are going well for you. About this edit to Module:Message box; I agree that the comment should be split up onto multiple lines. Much of the other code should probably be refactored to make it easier to read on smaller screens as well. However, that edit just put more than 3 million pages into the job queue, which is going to clog up the system for maybe a day or two. So it's best to discuss these things first and make beautification edits like that one at the same time as other, more substantial changes. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! And indeed, it would be better to discuss this first. I would have if I realised such a minor change would affect so many articles. Thanks for letting me know, AGK [•] 14:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admin review and oversight

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This formal mediation is going off the rails and needs a review and oversight. See, WP:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and User talk:Sunray. I don't see a noticeboard that fits this kind of situation. Is there anything you can do here? Ignocrates (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to John Carter here. Sunray (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that replacement of the mediator can be requested based on his having made, and apparently operated on, a belief that he rather clearly stated in the mediation, to the effect that any statement issued by a tenured professor cannot be counted as being fringe or such. I believe the review of several recent statements by tendured academics regarding several topics relating to religion in the early of the beginning of Christianity can be seen to rather clearly dispute this. One example, among many, is one of the editors of the Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In at least one review of that reference work, in Biblical Archaeology Review, the reviewer of the encyclopedia complimented one of the encyclopedia's editors for not writing the article in the reference work relating to one of his own personal published theories regarding the nature of the Qumran community, a belief/theory of his which seems to have, according to the review, have had little if any support from anyone else involved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. ON the basis of that and other similar, numerous, occasions when one individual tenured professor has made statements which have had little if any support from anyone else regarding religious topics, which I believe is pretty much the definition of fringe, I believe I am reasonably justified in saying that the mediator has displayed a very regrettable lack of knowledge of this topic, and also that he seems, based on his statement, to have taken his own view based on that lack of information as one of the bases for his conclusions. I cannot believe it is considered acceptable or reasonable for a mediator to take his own apparently ill-informed opinions as "gospel" regarding topics about which he himself also seems to have very little, if any, basic understanding, and that I believe is very reasonable grounds for believing that individual is not competent to function as a mediator in that particular instance. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the process outlined on my talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to closely and patiently follow the mediator's advice, even if at the moment he is taking the mediation in a direction you do not agree with, or not giving enough attention to points you think are important. Failing that, you can request a change of mediator using the process quoted at Sunray's talk page. You must realise that that process requires you to complain by email precisely so we have no uncomfortable public exchanges (like this one) that further erode the legitimacy of the mediation proceedings. I would consider intervening as an administrator only after you (i) continue to honour the mediator's directions and then (ii) complain to MedCom through the correct channels. Thanks, AGK [•] 21:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the recent exchange on my user talk page, in which Andrevan apparently chose to use policies and guidelines regarding notability as a rather flawed basis for arguing matters more clearly and reasonably relating to matters of weight. Let me be honest. Directions which seem to clearly misapply policies and guidelines to circumstances to which they were never meant to be applied cannot be considered reasonable or necessary acceptable when dealing with a mediator who has also indicated on the mediation pages that he would be willing to use his administrator powers in the event he saw conduct he saw unacceptable, a threat which is particularly problematic considering that mediator's own very dubious understanding of some of the relevant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being dissatisfied with the performance of the mediator, I requested support to help maintain decorum, per WP:CIVIL. Ignocrates (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether the above comment applies as an interaction as per the previous interaction ban, but I do believe that this statement posted to my user page by User:Andrevan at 21:53, substantially after my having posted to his own talk page at 21:30 and again at 21:50 requesting him to stay off my talk page, as can be seen on his own talk page, makes me personally believe that there are extremely serious questions regarding whether Andrevan can even be trusted to engage in civil conduct himself, let alone seeking to impose his own view of civility, which is in no way enhanced by his own dubious ability to remain civil himself. It is generally considered a serious breach of decorum to violate that such a request once, and Andrevan has now done it twice. A mediator who is, I believe demonstrably, incapable of himself following the rules of civil decorum cannot reasonably expect anyone else to adhere to standards he himself will not adhere to. AGK, you are an administrator, and I believe it reasonable that I can request you to advise Andrevan to make a more visible effort to abide by rules of conduct himself, and I also believe it would be not unreasonable for you to perhaps advise Andrevan whether you believe that such extremely dubious conduct on his part may in fact be such a serious impairment of his own credibility in this matter that he may not be able to function as a mediator, as his own good offices are seriously called into question by his own conduct. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter, I direct you for the fourth time to use the proper channels for removing a mediator from a case. AGK [•] 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ago

AGK, do you a problem with this statement "WP isn't a refuge for the mentally unstable, in fact it's probably one of the the last places anyone with mental health issues should be." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.5.195 (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count two statements. Which one? Why do you care? (And a third question in: who are you?) AGK [•] 23:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble

Here you listed 12 active and 3 recused arbitrators on the Kevin motion, but aren't there only 14 arbitrators in total? EdChem (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, indeed. Now fixed. Thanks EdChem! AGK [•] 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's fifteen if you count Harvey. NE Ent 22:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YGM!

Hello, Arcticocean. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.