Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:15, 12 March 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 04:21, Saturday 28 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?

User talk:Sandstein#Mild warnings of discretionary sanctions

Hi, I'm being investigated for SockPuppet as a consequence of accusations from the User "The Banner" about an article (probably to avoid his own editing to be investigated). According to the rules, I'd like to communicate that I already have the same account in Wiktionary. I hope this is the right place. Thank you Etimo (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, in the above-linked thread, EdJohnston proposed creating a new "mild" discretionary sanctions notification template. Do you have an opinion about that?  Sandstein  09:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, the proposal is a good one. However, I would suggest that we postpone its implementation until I have the opportunity to publish my motions concerning discretionary sanctions—simply because a new template may "muddy the waters" by causing there to be too much change at once. Also, it is likely I will have something to say, within the forthcoming motions, about the wording and purpose of warnings and notices of discretionary sanctions, which may have to be considered when creating this new template.

As an aside, my most urgent present wiki-task is the publication of the proposed decision in Doncram. By arrangement with my co-drafter, that decision will be published tomorrow evening or on Saturday morning. However, after that my first priority will be the discretionary sanctions renovation. If you feel as though there has been a delay in dealing with your clarification request, it is only because proposed decisions are the committee's highest priority—and you had the ill-luck to make your clarification request just before we took on a case-load that is higher than it has been for many months. Regards, AGK 22:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying and for taking the time to work on the clarification request and the attendant changes in procedure. I agree that it's best to wait until that has been resolved. It's not a very urgent matter, so I completely understand that your priority is resolving the ongoing cases.  Sandstein  07:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I retain a strong interest in the outcome, since I received the "strong" notification template from Sandstein that included the stigmatizing "if you continue..." wording that indicates a accusation of wrong-doing – one that I've already proven to be false. Since that time, Sandstein's accusation has been twice misused for vexatious WP:GAMING against me at WP:AE. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 23:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot predict how my colleagues will vote (nor am I even sure into which camp I fall), but at this point I think I intend to propose a new system whereby the "warnings" become "notices" that require little or no presumption of guilt. The present template is very severe, but it was never designed to be worded in such a way, and the earliest templates were merely reminders that discretionary sanctions are in effect for a given artilcle or topic; although the template now in use gives a very different impression, I think it was only used on your talk page because it is, really, the only standardised way of satisfying the requirements of our discretionary sanctions system. AGK 20:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have recently become interested in the issue too. You may have seen my ARBCC clarification request or the followup discussion on Penwhale's talk page. My opinion is that the "notification" process should be "notification" and not a warning or suggestion of guilt. After all, the more people who have actual knowledge of an ARB ruling the better, if the idea is "prevention, not punishment". One arb commented (s)he did not want to see this become another arrow in a disputant's quiver. The type of harmless notice I am talking about would be a floofoo arrow, with a rubber tip, that only flies 15 feet of so and bounces off of tinfoil. But still puts people on DS notice. As such, anyone not otherwise under some sanction should be able to post a notice and log it, but I will be interested in the motion you propose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Request from User:Whitetararaj

Please write all my articles in Misplaced Pages. When you deleted some of my contents, you also deleted the names of articles which I have created. You should do it or else I will give a complaint about you or an administrator for Vandalizing Misplaced Pages. Thanks! Whitetararaj 12:07, 23 February, 2013 (UTC)

DS Draft

Not sure where you / the Committee are going with this, but ya'll should choose one of two paths. Either

• Warnings
  • Linked to specific editor behavior contrary to wikipolicy
  • Must be placed on editor's talk page
  • May only be placed by uninvolved admin
  • Appealable somewhere, most likely AE

or

• Notifications
  • Linked only to editor contributing in affected area
  • Must be placed on editor's talk page
  • May be placed by anyone
  • Not appealable

The sort of just a courtesy notice, sort of a specific accusation, ambiguous nature of the wording of the current draft is just going to cause problems. NE Ent 14:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but my draft is in a very early stage and what I have now is very far from what I intend to propose. I disagree that notices given by administrators must be appealed; I think I will actually propose a system that falls somewhere between the two "paths" you suggest (for a number of very good reasons). I'll publicise a link to the draft once I've finished it. Regards, AGK 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You realize the top of it has the invitation "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well...", right? I wouldn't have commented now otherwise. NE Ent 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant to suggest that any comments are likely to be made obsolete by the edits I'll have to make in order to bring the draft up to publication standard, not that your comments were not welcome. AGK 15:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Understood. NE Ent 12:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Doncram case

You double-voted there bud. :) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Argh, I did indeed. Thanks for letting me know. AGK 22:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Email

I haven't received it yet. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's on Oversight-l, sent on 2 March 2013 14:21 by Snowolf. Are you subscribed to that mailing list? AGK 15:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am but from a different email address than the one I usually use, and I'm not sure I remember the login. Perhaps the relevant email could be forwarded via the email link on my user page? Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've sent a hard copy of the e-mail to you by EmailUser, but it's quite problematic that you aren't properly subscribed to Oversight-l so you might like to ask a listadmin to update your e-mail address. My e-mail address is wikiagkgmail.com, if you want me to proxy any information. AGK 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Sure. I thought we were phasing out the mailing list in favor of OTRS? But whatever ... Who would be the listadmin to ask? Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The mailing list is used quite regularly, for discussion of complicated tickets and more general co-ordination. You would ask anybody whose e-mail address is listed beside "Oversight-l list run by" at the bottom of mail:Oversight-l. Thanks, AGK 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm an email on the topic was also sent yesterday by Risker to functionaries-en, did you at least receive that one? Snowolf 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The best contact for OS listadmins would be Risker or myself. Daniel, if you need your registered email for OTRS updated, I can handle that as well. Keegan (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please "courtesy vanish" my account

Cancel all redirects to my user page, please. Rename my account. Thank you. Humanpublic (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to vanish your account. You need to read Misplaced Pages:RTV#How to request a courtesy vanishing. Regards, AGK 15:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That says I have to use email. If I don't want to give Misplaced Pages my email, I contact a "functionary." You are first on the list of functionaries. Humanpublic (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've emailed the bureaucrats a diff of Humanpublic's request here. NE Ent 19:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, thanks very much. Humanpublic, the page instructs you to contact a Functionary "for advice". You are asking for your account to be vanished, not asking for advice on the process of vanishing. Only a bureaucrat could vanish your account. AGK 20:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A thought

Hi Anthony, I thought I'd bring this here rather than bog down the discussion of the motion over a tangential issue but I wanted to respond to your point about admin actions made on the basis of OTRS tickets and other private information. Since discretion and privacy are the raison d'être of processes like oversight and OTRS, doesn't drawing attention to the existence of the private information by decreeing that the action cannot be reversed by a non-oversighter/non-OTRS agent/etc sort of defeat the point of the secrecy? For example, I don't wish to criticise Beeblebrox too harshly, but his mentioning of oversight in the block log entry only advertised that there was oversightable information somewhere. For those reasons, I tend to think that the logic behind the motion is flawed (though I also believe the motion is procedurally flawed and starts us down a slippery slope of ArbCom amending policy at will to retrospectively justify its actions). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion there wouldn't be as much furor over an OTRS-related block as there's a lot of OTRS agents who also are enwiki admins. OTRS actions are also bound by enwiki policy as well, and those should be even more rare than CU/OS blocks. The only time that I've mentioned OTRS in blocking is when a ticket made it clear an account was here solely for promotion and it wasn't obvious from the onwiki evidence alone, and I would gladly explain that to anyone who questioned it. --Rschen7754 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• HJ: It is a very important concern that "oversighter blocks" are a self-contradictory notion. However, the controversy over the Cla68–Kevin incident came about because Kevin reversed a block which is not afforded special protection by any Misplaced Pages policy (or committee ruling); the absence of such protection made the status of the block open to debate where it would (if policy or committee procedure had already set down rules for reversing the block) otherwise have been an open-and-shut case. Today, {{unblock}} requests made in relation to a checkuser block are almost automatically closed by non-checkuser members of the community with a comment like "Checkuser block – please use UTRS or contact a functionary". Oversighter blocks are very rarely made (I think I personally have only ever made one, and I've blocked a lot of accounts), so the cultural transition in this case may be slower. However, by affording blocks based on suppressed edits the same special protection as 'checkuser blocks' have, the committee is—in my mind—ensuring that, in future, these types of incidents are both handled by a person in possession of all the facts and handled with minimal drama and attention. The alternative to causing this cultural change would be a community where oversighters could never block a user based on edits that have to be suppressed (lest their blocks be reversed at the whim of any of our ~1,400 administrators), or where any oversighter who was forced to make such a block could not prevent its reversal without a similar amount of drama as we have in the present situation. Regards, AGK 20:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't reversal distinct from granting unblock request following user commitment not to repeat action? I don't think anyone is arguing Cla68 didn't dox. NE Ent 20:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Undoubtedly so, but in my mind that's not really the point. An action either has special status or does not. If it does, those without the right to do so should not be commuting or overturning the block—because, not having access to all of the suppressed edits, how could they know the blocked user was genuine when he or she promised not to engage in the same misconduct once unblocked? If they can't read the offending edits, they are flying blind.

  On another (less theoretical) point, I don't think we need to make much fuss out of restricting these blocks only to oversighters. I can count the number of oversighter blocks I know of on one hand, so the motion the committee is presently considering would affect a minute proportion of the number of blocks we make on Misplaced Pages. AGK 20:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• They don't know whether the blocked user's intent is genuine -- but that's a tautology, no unblocking admin ever does. It's a matter of judgement, which is why we run editors through that dreadful Rfa process before giving them the bit. NE Ent 20:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Rschen, there probably would be less of a furore over an OTRS action; but if you imagine a case where you blocked a user based on an OTRS ticket that contained information that simply could not be revealed (even in a summarised form), then you would have a better idea of the pickle our oversighters are placed in when they have to make these types of block. Although I cited it as an example, OTRS poorly illustrates my argument, because most OTRS tickets are simply behind an interface that not everybody can log into; conversely, oversighted edits contain information that is both restricted and highly sensitive, rather than merely restricted. AGK 20:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, at least we have an ArbCom here; I also hold sysop on two other WMF wikis and have faced situations where we may have to block users based on sensitive information, but the only way to indefinitely block users would be to have a community discussion... awkward. --Rschen7754 20:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AUSC

Hello I submitted a complaint to WP:AUSC by email (click here for the text of the email) a day or two ago and the only reply I got said that the email was awaiting moderation. I also notice that the AUSC community reps' terms have expired. Is AUSC on hiatus? --Surturz (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We received your e-mail, and have opened deliberations on your complaint. I also sent you an acknowledgement that we safely received your e-mail. AUSC is fully active, and the community members' terms have been extended so that we can appoint our next group of community auditors at the same time as our new checkusers and oversighters (these things usually happen annually). Regards, AGK 13:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Russavia

Well this is depressing, considering the goings on at Jimbo's talk page. In any case, was this all carried on here on English wikipedia, or is the motion somewhere else? In addition, Russavia has made a point that he intends to get the EE ban lifted as one of the first items on the agenda. I assume that appealing a ban doesn't violate the ban itself, but it certainly seems to violate the spirit of his unblock. Hasn't arbcom & the community created bans that couldn't be lifted for a set period of time? Ryan Vesey 15:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider Russavia able to appeal his topic ban until six months have elapsed, because appeals are not usually accepted more often than once every half year—and his recent petitioning of us does constitute an appeal of his topic ban. However, I'm not entirely sure if my colleagues would agree with my position. I don't see much on Jimbo's talk page that has particular relevance to whether Russavia should be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, particularly because any concerns that he will again mention "Polandball" are inherently mitigated by the fact that we have upheld the Eastern Europe topic ban and confirmed it applies to that cartoon. Russavia had no talk page access, so the motion was conducted off-site (on our mailing list); in this case and others, appeals of blocks and site-bans are not heard on-Misplaced Pages. In my view, the important thing to remember about our decision in this appeal is that Russavia can be immediately re-blocked if he tries to edit any EE pages, or quotes or publishes a Polandball cartoon. Regards, AGK 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

While it is the action of another editor, I do find the posting of a Polandball cartoon on Russavia's talk page by odder to be a bit of unnecessary provocation. Russavia doesn't need anyone tempting him, even if they are just being friendly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've followed this up on Russavia's talk page, but it will be the only time I will do so. If he engages in further involvement (tangential or otherwise) with Polandball, I will propose to my colleagues that we rescind our decision to allow his appeal, and I've told Russavia as much. Thanks, AGK 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My thinking is he shouldn't be faulted for someone else adding an image to his page and shouldn't be expected to step into the rather odd quandary of whether it is a violation to remove the image. Odder obviously knew the topic ban was in effect, yet decided to post the image. I feel that editor is more at fault.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, in the same day he was unblocked he posted three personal attacks against other editors:

• trolls are not welcome on my talk page -- stay away from me for good
• i can answer that Comcast troll
• hey bitches i'm back

Over and out. --Samson190 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• The 2nd diff doesn't work (because Oversighted), but I believe he reverted someone who posted stuff that needed to be oversighted, so while it may be offensive... - Penwhale | 03:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

He basicly just called the entire community bitches in an edit summery and refered to an editor as a comcast troll. OK, this does mean that such behavior is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the phrase "hey bitches I'm back" used a great many times in a great many places on the internet, and on none of those occasions was it intended in anything other than a friendly and/or humorous manner. While it's not an edit summary I'd recommend or use myself, it's also very possible it's being misinterpreted here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite. In my view, it's much more than possible that that particular edit summary is being misinterpreted. AGK 12:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi AGK, I just noticed that I've been mentioned in a Russavia-related discussion above, and wanted to straighten out a few things. Firstly, my posting of a Polandball cartoon on Russavia's talk page was not intended as a provocation — as a fellow Wikimedia Commons admin I am aware of his work on the cartoons and his, say, very specific sense of humour, so I just wanted to welcome him back on the English Misplaced Pages in his style, after seeing him work tirelessly to get the one-year long block lifted. And secondly, when posting that cartoon on Russavia's talk page, I was /not/ aware that the restrictions placed upon him include something as harmless as mentioning the Polandball comics.

  I read the scope of his topic ban at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe a couple of times (not immediately before placing the image, though), and as far as I see, it does not mention Polandball at all. Would you please mind clarifying to me, as a total outsider, how it came that the topic ban now includes mentioning Polandball, and how do you think Russavia is able to not allow other users to post Polandball cartoons on his talk page, and why would he be responsible for the actions of others? (And just by the way, if you find it inappropriate, then I am not going to post more cartoons on Russavia's talk page.) Thanks in advance, odder (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am willing to accept that you did not add a Polandball cartoon to his talk page with any bad intention, but Russavia is now required to disengage from those cartoons while editing on the English Misplaced Pages. This means he will have to make it known he does not accept the cartoons on his talk page, and that he will not respond to them if they are posted. The scope of his topic ban may well not have included Polandball cartoons, but it now does as a result of the committee's motion to conditionally unblock him. Hope this helps, AGK 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AGK, are successful ban appeals not documented on WP:ACN? I really thought they were, though maybe my memory is faulty. (For the record, I think they should be.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Some aren't but most are. This one probably should have been announced, and now has been. Regards, AGK 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ban violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc1948 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Addressed at User_talk:Abc1948 NE Ent 14:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, NE Ent. AGK 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Open letter to 5 randomly selected Misplaced Pages big shots

If you check user me, and it is very common for curious Wikipedians to do so even though it is wrong, you will see that I used to be a frequent editor several years ago. Some of my edits were from this computer.

Misplaced Pages is a very hostile environment. After being attacked, the natural reaction is to leave, vandalize, or read but stop editing. I have done the latter. I hope that you will consider the following ideas.

1. It should be deemed a personal attack and a reason to ban an editor if they, lacking the ability to discuss things in a civil and convincing manner, then start to accuse another person of being a sock. This type of behavior is highly effective, showing how juvenile Misplaced Pages is.

Misplaced Pages would be far more effective if editors were not allowed to continue to edit if they cannot calmly and rationally discuss issues in the talk pages. This is a far better way to improve an article than to falsely accuse someone of being a sock.

2. Everyone should disclose conflicts of interests. There are plenty. Misplaced Pages is quick to block someone if their name is a corporate name but allows POV pushers all the time. The most common POV pusher is in biographies of politicians. Some will always push for inclusion of favorable material and exclusion of unfavorable material. They will use excuses such as "undue weight" or "trivia" or will call the other person a sock.

It should be automatically assumed that one is a POV pusher if all their edits are one sided or if they always support a partisan viewpoint in the talk pages. Misplaced Pages should be neutral.

One way to do it would be for people to disclose possible conflicts on their user page and update them as they edit articles. For example, one could disclose that they are American. Later, if they write about politics, they could disclose that they are a registered party member or a government employee. If they don't want to disclose this, they can stick with botany and animal articles. In academia, people do make disclosures when they give lectures.

3. The last point is not as critical. Misplaced Pages should try its utmost not to be hypocritical. There have been several cases of unfavorable information about Misplaced Pages removed from articles and favorable information included. Examples include reporting when entities' own articles have been edited by the entity and then reported in the news. This helps Misplaced Pages and is included several times. Yet when Misplaced Pages has egg on its face, like false deaths, even if reported in a news article, is always removed from the article by other editors acting as censors.

Finally, I disclose that I have started an account because I have not edited for so long and do not have my password or even my exact name. It's been years since I edited. VDAWP (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I had one of these, too.  Roger Davies 12:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a Misplaced Pages "Big Shot"? That's one to put on my c.v., I'm sure… VDAWP, I don't think you needed to let us know of your account history (though thank you for letting us know). I think you simply need to enjoy editing Misplaced Pages, and move on to some articles. Regards, AGK 12:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Re User:Greg Hedberg

This user is requesting unblock, having confused WP:RTV with WP:CLEANSTART and being blocked for socking. The history is a little unclear but I have the feeling it's a genuine request and I wondered if you had any thoughts? I believe this user has contacted you about the case in the recent past. The unblock request and some responses are at the user's talk page. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the appeal. I've commented on the appellant's talk page (and I also accepted the unblock request). Regards, AGK 22:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:AC

Hi. I declined a speedy deletion of {{AC}} because I think it was not valid. Nevertheless, at first glance, the template looks unused and un-useful... maybe it is an old test, which may be deleted? - Nabla (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It was indeed an old test, so I've deleted it. Thanks, AGK 22:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you - Nabla (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Harrasment By User

I am being harrased by user talk and need help.Causeandedit (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your evidence? AGK 21:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Question relating to AE apeals process clarification

Hi. On my talk page, at User talk:Sandstein#WP:INVOLVED, a user has raised the question whether administrators who commented on an enforcement request should recuse themselves in a later appeal. I think this is a valid question, and would appreciate it if the clarification proposals I understand you are preparing were to address it. I've voiced an opinion of my own on my talk page, and would of course also appreciate any advice by you. Regards,  Sandstein  22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)