Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 5 September 2013

"It is the stupidest children who are the most childish and the stupidest grown-ups who are the most grown-up." Where this user currently is, the time is 21:05, Saturday 11 January 2025. This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 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".

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Hello

Precious again

courage and analysis
Thank you for what you do in mediation, "being reasonable and offering to compromise", displayed again in your recent courage to structure a complex situation, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 October 2008)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 217th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for generously permitting me not to have to ask permission (and whose?) before adding an infobox to "A Crossbreed". I wonder by what logic Andy could not do the same if "indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes". He would have to ask someone else to add an infobox to his own articles?? (One of them appears on the Main page right now.) - I don't think it's reasonable, nor fair. I don't see a single one of the infoboxes he added (looking at 19 debated cases) as problematic. Please consider. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As said in the case, my behaviour improved since April (when I didn't even think about BRD because I was so disappointed (Sparrow Mass), and June when I had no words for edit notice "Let's not try to recapitulate the whole article in an infobox; people who visit this page probably have the ability to read whole paragraphs.", which showed again a complete ignorance for the purpose of an infobox. I am on 1RR now. To my observation, Andy's behaviour also improved, I don't see him as a danger to Misplaced Pages, and everybody will watch his edits anyway. The dangers that I see are ownership and protection of the status quo. Did you see some of the arguments you get when you like infoboxes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• music for you, - you made it possible, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Evidence against": I will not supply anything against anyone, even if asked a third time. On a person to person level, I can deal with all people on both sides, you will find most names in the "Precious" list. - I left the two controversial projects. Please see also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Please let me understand what " treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground" means, one piece of evidence please. I have the feeling that I typed "consensus" 100 times during the case, - it didn't help so far. I don't actually care if I get "admonished", I am concerned about the (too) narrow concentration of broad evidence to a "finding". "Peace" is the first word on my user, please take a look, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The hymn mentioned on the decision talk is also for you, - thank you for support in kafkaesque times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible outing

I believe this constitutes an outing. --I am One of Many (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This user stated their mission is to get me banned, see video proof provided here: http://www.sendspace.com/file/p7cqyc They made several lies, I am forced to defend myself and she has been trying to bait me to defend myself. I am unable to defend myself and prove she is dishonest without having done that. I just proved the person is dishonest and one should not take what she says as truth. You are being totally one sided I am One of Many. First you said the user Marie013 doesn't seem interested in anime so her story seems true to you, and after I give proof she is lying, you do something like this? I have removed this and understand what I did could be considered outing and if it is I am sincerely sorry, I thought it was relevant to the situation. I wont add it back unless it is determined to be relevant for the situation in order for me to defend myself. Every user who has called Marie and others users by their names including me is totally unintentional as we know each other off site through friends or other--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There are absolutely no excuses for outing and you continue here. I am One of Many (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If you thought what I was doing was against wikipedia policy you should of warned me. Instead you went and tried to get me banned? Do you hate me that much?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

new

Suggestion

I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me (I would be in your place), but any community discussion of infoboxes would be prejudiced, possibly poisoned, if it followed an arbitration decision where a major proponent had been banned for his advocacy. Would you be willing to reconsider your position on banning Andy, perhaps on the understanding that if drove the the community discussion off a cliff he could always be banned by motion? Admittedly even that sword of Damocles might be inappropriate. Please consider this, and thanks for listening. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Support this. It would be good for my "(mental) health", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi to you both (and this is a nightmare case that I've struggled to confidently vote on, so no comments are unwelcome). I remember in the GoodDay case that there was a similar predicament to the one that Andy poses. In the end, I proposed this "GoodDay warned" remedy that stated:

GoodDay is strongly warned that, in the event of additional violations of Misplaced Pages's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee.

We ended up banning GoodDay by motion a few months later, but the final warning remedy did work for a while. I'm not sure I can buy into the argument that Andy is more than just an editor and that banning him could be detrimental to future debates about infoboxes; but Mackensen (how handy are these Echo notifications?), is this the sort of thing you think would work for Pigsonthewing? AGK 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think these echo notifications are fantastic and I find myself wikilinking users left and right. I do pause at the thought of them existing when I was still on the committee and getting yelled at a lot. Might have turned it off :). Anyway, let me expand on my concerns here. I see this dispute as somewhat localized. Infoboxes, in general, aren't controversial. Many projects curate them. Many projects more or less insist of them and include them as part of their suggested article formats. There's also a long-term trend to consolidate and generalize infoboxes, on the grounds that this process will (a) standardize information display, which is good for the reader and (b) make it clear what infobox to use, which is good for the editor. Andy does considerable work in this area, and it's very valuable. It's also tedious drudgery and can make enemies since many editors (myself included at times) dislike change. Sometimes however change is good, and no harm can come from good-faith discussions.

If you ban Andy it will be taken as a validation of those who oppose infoboxes. Beyond losing the services of a passionate, experienced advocate, it will be sending a message that the root-and-branch opposition that's been practiced is acceptable and within community norms. If you then have a general discussion about infoboxes, hanging over it is the fact that the last person who challenged the status quo on certain articles was unceremoniously banned by arbcom. That becomes a weapon. Am I about to re-open a discussion about infoboxes? I mean, I might anyway, on the assumption that I'm hard to ban, but I'd still be in for a rough ride. Someone without my experience, tenure, or cabalist connections might not feel so bold. This is why I say the committee is taking sides in a content dispute. You have two sides with trenchant opinions, and you're giving one an effective veto. If there's going to be a community discussion then all voices need to be heard without fear of sanction or retribution.

Brings me to last point, since I'm rambling on a bit. You would need to word such a sanction carefully, and I think I would deliberately limit it to tone and conduct. Proposing changes to an article shouldn't be considered controversial. Doing it repeatedly after consensus was established--yes, that's probably not on. But proposing an infobox for an article as a matter of first impression shouldn't be a big deal. A great source of disquiet for me in this proceeding is that Andy isn't accused of violating any policies; he's simply accused of being an ardent advocate of a particular and by no means unusual point of view. I've just re-read GoodDay. What I find noteworthy is the finding concerning his uncollegial behavior. There's no parallel finding here concerning Andy, though one could easily make one for some of Andy's sparring partners. I don't think it would be worth the resulting anguish. I think if you're banning someone though you need more than what you've got here. Okay, I've rambled enough. Please let me know if should cut this down or refactor it or somehow communicate better. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is perfectly readable (and not nearly as long as what I often have to read). As seems to recently have been my wont, I'm going to take some time to consider the question of what to do with Andy. As you know, I've voted to site ban him; but I'm still uncomfortable with my decision. And it's not in the usual sense of arbitrator discomfort, namely "I'm really sad that we have to do this/this is going to annoy a lot of people", but in that I think we might be being too harsh on Andy. So I'll consider your thoughtful comments (thank you very much for offering them), and take a fresh look at this in a couple of days. I've responded to you on the PD talk page, by the way, regarding the Andy FOF; while you've engaged me with your views on the remedy, I think you've called it wrong on the finding, but you'll see that over there. AGK 18:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's this very interesting old arbcom case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2, which Mackensen voted to accept. The complaint of the filing party is particularly interesting, and voting arbiters in 2007 unanimously went for a one-year ban following that case, a vote BTW that you sat out.

One would think that in order to demonstrate a change in behaviour, a user sanctioned would at least steer clear of the very area that was at the heart of the previous complaint. Surprisingly though, we're again looking at issues related with feuding over infoboxes in the area of classical music. Disregarding other instances of problematic behaviour and the refusal to take any feedback on his approach on-board which has been presented in evidence, how many more chances should a twice-banned user get when he's still exhibiting the very same behaviour 6 years later? In the exact same area?

I don't subscribe to the general theory that a leopard doesn't change its spots when it is applied to people, but I'd expect to see evidence of that change to believe it happened. MLauba 18:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I sat it out. I was pretty busy with checkuser duties at the time. It's worth noting that the case was six years ago, and the evidence concerned revert-warring. That's not alleged here. Andy has improved. As someone who remembers the original arbitration case, when Karmafist (later desysopped and banned himself) baited Andy repeated, I think he's come a long, long way. The situations aren't really comparable. You might take note that after six years members of WP:COMPOSER haven't changed their views on infoboxes. Do we hold that against them? Mackensen (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Have any of them been banned twice already? MLauba 19:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but that's beside the point. It's very unusual to get banned; more than anything, especially in the older days, it meant that you didn't have loud friends or you had loud enemies. I can think of several arbitration cases essentially decided on reputation, the actual facts be damned. Bans from that period aren't really indicative of anything and I wouldn't attach all that much importance to them. I was privy to several cases where, internally, we agreed that someone's behavior was completely inappropriate but nothing was done because of who it was (both editors and sysops). Behavior isn't more or less excusable depending on the vagaries of arbitration committees of years past. Don't mistake it for something approaching a fact-based tribunal. This is not to cast aspersions on the current committee; I am not privy to its deliberations and I cannot speak for it. Mackensen (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet block log entries, no matter how old, are part and parcel of any discussion of further blocks among admins. Several arbitration cases over the past couple of years have eventually banned editors sanctioned by previous arbcom decisions using that as an indication of a pattern of behaviour. What makes Andy's case any different? And how would the present arbitrators differentiate between a decision by its predecessors taken on more than just reputation and those taken just on reputation?

I'm genuinely puzzled but also realize that we're imposing on AGK's hospitality, so feel free to take the rest of this to my or your talk page. MLauba 22:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure AGK will kick us out whenever it suits him. Anyway. You've hit on a significant problem without a solution. Block logs don't tell the whole story. Most blocks are good. Some are borderline. Some are downright wrong and lead to desysoppings. However, there's real resistance in the community to expunging block logs, even if the block was bad. Andy has raised this very issue with AGK: his old blocks are being used against him even though (apparently, I haven't read all the evidence) later consensus on ANI was that some of the blocks were bad. This is not an unusual situation when tempers are up. I've seen more bad blocks than I can count. You have to trust that the arbitrators are familiar with a block's context. This becomes difficult as we go further back. I've been here since 2003 and lived through a lot of this. The wiki was a different place even six years ago. Some members of the committee weren't even editors, let alone sysops, when those cases were decided. As for how does arbcom get it right? Well, often it doesn't, or can't, or doesn't want to. Arbitrators are asked to read mountains of evidence submitted by angry people and then dispense wisdom. Normally that means a block or a ban because it's easier then mentoring or probation or something which might actually help. More than anything arbcom just wants this issue to go away.

I find Andy's case unusual only in that the committee has reached very, very far back to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. During a case in I think 2007, might have been 2008, I tried to bring up a past case from 2005 as evidence of a continuing problem (fun fact, it involves a participant in the current arbitration whom shall remain nameless; not Andy) and was roundly abused for my pains. At the time, no one saw the relevance of a three-year old arbitration case and indeed much had changed since then. Drawing a straight line over six years is problematic, if for no other reason then there hasn't been a case in those six years. If the problem were truly serious I would have expected one.

In a sense what happens here is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Block logs and bans are marks against you and they're out there for all to see (if you look, I was once blocked myself; the person who did was desysopped for it). Many editors who find themselves in disputes with such "stigmatized" editors will bring up that history as leverage. This case is rife with such behavior and it's not unique in that regard. I'm not criticizing you per se, but there's this assumption that when there's smoke there's fire, and that if an editor has "a history" they are somehow less trustworthy, less deserving of respect, less deserving of understanding. Anyway, you're probably right that we're trying AGK's patience; please drop me a line on my talk page . All the best, Mackensen (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to your nice message on my talk, AGK, and a bit to the above:

• Orlady mentioned that probation was tried in another arb case, see my talk..
• It's on record that I argued against Andy when I encountered the first "infobox debate" on Samuel Barber, but found him then already helpful, patient and with a sense of humour.
• The de-WP, fr-WP and nn-WP have Infoboxes for all Bach cantatas (one of my topics), that made me think of one for en. I asked Andy, and we had an extremely pleasant creative time. - Just now, our concept was installed in de by another user, as superior to what they had.
• I didn't look at a block record ;) (I am known for singing the praises of banned editors, but prefer to do it for unbanned editors.)
• Peter Planyavsky is an article that I wrote, adding an infobox. It was reverted, I improved, it was reverted, then Andy helped me (moving a collapsed infobox from the bottom up to the normal position, uncollapsed, and on the talk). This case is now mentioned in SilkTork's reasoning for voting to ban him. I conclude: he might be banned because he helped me. I better stop. - Update: until today that infobox was collapsed, which I think defies its purpose, now Nikkimaria kindly opened it. "Don't believe in miracles. Rely on them." (Mascha Kaléko) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey AGK. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for evidence relating to Kleinzach and Smerus

was posted here : (olive (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

RfC - Edit-warring.

I've opened an RfC regarding a discussion that you were involved in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say there at this moment, but thanks for letting me know. AGK 11:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Waiting

Sorry for becoming a bit testy with you, AGK, but I'm a very busy man, and I hold people to their word.

You stated in an email to me that you would leave a comment, and that was two days ago.

Please either contact me to say you have changed your mind, if you have determined it would be against your interest to leave the comment, or venture a response to one of the many comments I've left.

Otherwise, not only does your intention become opaque to me, but your comportment toward me appears to be embody a dimension of duplicity. It's unclear to me if you made the statement that you would leave the comment and then failed to follow through because you thought I would wait in silence while the case closed with me having an undeserved indefinite topic ban due in part to your faulty FoF.

Many of us would like to see this case go away, including me, and I have made my stance clear to NYB when I forwarded you email exchange with me to him. If you feel that you are incapable of dealing with people of my intellectual caliber, then perhaps you should consider not running for arbcom until you are. Note that I do not enjoy having to take you to task any more than I appreciate the slight of character suffered at the objectionable FoF you drafted and have subsequently refused to address.

I gather that there appears to be an Arbcom is infallible complex on this website, but I don't adhere to that school of thought.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Party movement PD talk page is very busy, so I did not notice you had copied your message over as we discussed. Since you did not alert me to the message (before posting this rather curt note), I don't think I have anything to apologise for, but I will go reply now. Regards, AGK 10:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your response is too late to have any bearing on the case, and since you not only avoided responding to my question since August 22, but also refused to respond publicly to the suggestion by NYB, your intentions are unclear, at best, to me.

In the response you posted today for "the committee", you basically make recourse to the content of sources as your "sound arguments". You are now forcing me to repeat myself, but not only does that claim amount to a judgement on content, but you have used a bit of sophistry to elide the question of the false allegation you made against me of misconducting myself by "ignoring sound arguments about article content", which presupposes the engagement between Wikipedians regarding arguments they are presenting to each other about the content of Misplaced Pages articles they are editing.

Now I don't mean to be condescending to you, bear in mind that I have questioned Courcelles about his apparent bias toward another party to the case, one that had been sanctioned for similar violations in 2010.

However, you have wasted my time and effort, and continue to insult me by trying to make recourse to sophistry. I understand that NYB is an attorney, according to Wikipediocracy, well, as I am not a complete stranger to attorneys and court proceedings, I would suggest that you seek the advice of NYB before engaging in such attempts to misrepresent reality to avoid culpability for your mistakes, even if other members of the Committee put you up to drafting that FoF.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)