Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:56, 11 March 2014

"I myself know nothing, except just a little, enough to extract an argument from another man who is wise and to receive it fairly." Where this user currently is, the time is 04:09, Thursday 26 December 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 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".

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

GOCE February blitz wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors Misplaced Pages: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)

Accounts blocked on 12 February

ChickenWalker and the two unused accounts are probably Kumioko, but the other four look unrelated. One of them appears to be using their real name and made their first edits before the original Kumioko account was created. Peter James (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Unblocked, with prejudice to reblocking if the accounts start quacking. AGK 01:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've turned off pings

Just a heads-up that I've turned off "mention" pings, because I am receiving too many. Anybody who requires my attention at a discussion will need to notify me of it on this page. I've also semi-protected this talk page, as a certain banned individual is editing it without authorisation. Thanks! AGK 16:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lang-my-fonts

Can you unprotect this tpl so I can move it? I don't know if it's ever had 'over 1000' transclusions, but it currently has 1, not in mainspace. — Lfdder (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: It probably will have had that many transclusions at one point, though I can't explain why there are so few now. I have reduced the template's protection to allow you to move it. AGK 12:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It used to be transcluded in {{lang-my}}, apparently. — Lfdder (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove talk page comments

From other peoples talk pages. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And unclear why you removed Will's ability to comment on his talk page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of Will Beback’s ability to edit his talk page?

Can you explain the rationale for removing Will Beback’s ability to edit his own talk page after he posted a ban appeal to his talk page? Using one's talk page to appeal a ban or block is not usually considered disruptive. Also, the policy page wp:ARBPOL#Forms_of_proceeding that you cited does not say that it is forbidden to appeal a ban publicly; it only says that “Appeals by blocked, banned, or similarly restricted users are usually conducted by email.” Cardamon (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the case page you cited when removing talk page access at 14:55, 6 March 2014 says " ... After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, ... ," which does not say the appeal must be by e-mail. Cardamon (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly. I asked the same question above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this change be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions? —rybec 10:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm entirely uninvolved, as far as I remember. (True, I have a poor memory for usernames.) I too have blocked a few people in my time, but I'm very surprised by this additional prohibition. I don't see anything in Will Beback's single post that's objectionable. True, WP:BAN says that somebody who's site-banned usually doesn't have access to their own talk page, but it also says how banned editors may use their talk page, and I see nothing about Will Beback's message that violates this in letter or spirit. Please consider reversing yourself here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your messages. Will Beback posted a message which at first blush appeared to proclaim his innocence and reframe the appeal away from the central issue of whether he would be likely to commit the same offences if unbanned. I was concerned that this would turn community opinion even more sharply against him, and endanger the chances of his current ArbCom appeal being successful.

Separately from why Will should not wish for this message to be kept in the public record, there are several clear reasons why it is in any event impermissible:

• Will was never entitled to edit his talk page, because he is banned at the direction of ArbCom. We require appeals to be conducted by email; when the arbitration says "he may appeal his ban", committee procedures mean that appeal must be by email. When the banning policy explains how banned users may use their talk page, it does not take into account the fact that Will is not entitled to a public hearing, as he was banned by the committee—and committee appeals are only heard by email.
• The banning policy means bans apply to all editing, good or bad, so Will was not entitled to edit his talk page regardless of the merits of what he posted.
• When Doc James restored Will's submission (thereby, in any event, doing him a disservice in the appeal), he proxied for a banned editor. WP:PROXYING requires Doc James to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Will's submission does not pass that test.

I have therefore re-blanked the talk page. Given that policy clearly prohibits Will's submission being made to his talk page, it must not be restored.

I will indeed log the talk page revocation at the TimidGuy ban appeal log. As a footnote, talk page access is not routinely revoked simply as a courtesy to users banned by the Arbitration Committee. It is expected and required by policy that they not edit their talk page; exceptions cannot be made. AGK 09:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If the committee is being courteous, why are banned editors blocked and tagged at all? NE Ent 18:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting logic. It appears that you are not interested in the wider community seeing the appeal. Care to explain why?

With respect to WP:PROXYING the comments restored were productive also I am not editing at the direction of a banned editor. I am not sure how you can state they are not productive? Is no one allowed to look at arbcom rulings other than arbcom? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello AGK, thank you for answering. However, you misunderstand the Misplaced Pages banning policy you've linked to with your remark "The banning policy means bans apply to all editing, good or bad, so Will was not entitled to edit his talk page regardless of the merits of what he posted." Concerning banned editors' access to their talk pages, the policy says

Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.

Editors who cannot edit any page except their talk page may: Post an appeal or comment there and ask (by email or other off-site means) for it to be reposted to the appropriate discussion. This is a voluntary act, and should not be abused or used to excess.

Will you respond to the comment by Cardamon of 03:44, 7 March (the first comment in this section)? I too see a difference between usually and always. If your statements reflect the current wishes of the committee, then WP:ARBPOL should be updated. —rybec 03:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but I'm really puzzled by what you saying here, Rybec. He posted on his talk page on 4 March; his appeal had been sent in to ArbCom per normal by email some weeks before. The purpose of the 4 March post cannot therefore have been to appeal as one had already been filed and was well underway.

On the other issue, ARBPOL is accurate enough. We handle appeals from our own decisions as well as a very large number referred by the community and very occasionally appeals of Jimmy's actions. ArbCom appeals are always by email; community appeals are nearly always by email though we do occasionally arrange public soundings where community consensus in a ban discussion wasn't very clear. At some point, hopefully, the community will accept responsibly for their own appeals but there has been little or no enthusiasm for doing so thus far.  Roger Davies 05:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies:, As you know, I don't have access to the Arbitration Committee's e-mail. My only knowledge of what's transpired there comes from what is posted on Misplaced Pages. Before your comment, the only information I had about it was a remark by an IP editor who said "Will submitted his latest request somewhere in January. Now is the March, and he still got no response." The comment was later deleted and the IP address has been blocked. I can't tell from your remark whether the IP editor's comment is true, but if it is then Will Beback's posting of an unblocking request on his talk page seems reasonable.

When someone reads in WP:ARBPOL “Appeals by blocked, banned, or similarly restricted users are usually conducted by email” how is the reader to know that "ArbCom appeals are always by email"? Is that information posted elsewhere? —rybec 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably is somewhere though I can't guarantee it. But as it only affects the tiny number of people that ArbCom bans (typically one or two a year) it's scarcely critical. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that there was no need to post at all given the appeal had already been filed and was already being discussed by email.  Roger Davies 06:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

AN

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:27, 8 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 21:59, 10 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:Misplaced Pages 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 21:53, 10 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)