Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:40, 13 January 2012

I would also be grateful if you consider before posting whether your message is wholly necessary; I do use my watchlist! Now that my term has started, thank you to the Misplaced Pages community for their kind support of me in the December elections – and for turning this hobby into something of a leisure-time sink :). AGK 21:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:AGK/Notice

AE vs. amendment

I appreciate your suggestion about addressing the matter at AE instead of in an amendment, but my decision to raise it as a possible amendment is based on advice given by arbitrators and administrators. In addition to the diffs from Jclemens I posted in my response to you in the amendment thread, EdJohnston has warned us before that it's a bad idea to raise requests related to R&I at AE. Even though he points out the advice is not compulsory, I definitely have had the experience that involvement at AE about R&I is strongly discouraged as long as my topic ban is in effect. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. By way of an explanation of my comment, in my view we must always establish whether an amendment or clarification could be better handled within a community forum. I understand that you have been directed to contact the Committee directly with this issue, and in any case I would certainly not criticise you for submitting such an amendment request, but I remain unconvinced that this cannot be handled as an enforcement action. However, I will reconsider your request when my colleagues have had a chance to review the thread, and it could be that we must handle this directly. Irrespective of the content or phraseology of Mathsci's comments at the amendment page, I would counsel you to be careful in your participation in that thread going forward, because I imagine we will take a dim view of unprofessionalism from you, Mathsci, or Captain Occam (as I am sure you do not need reminded!). Regards, AGK 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have slightly reworded my explanation at the amendment thread for clarity. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci's now brought the issue to AE himself. I'm sure AE doesn't want to see two threads at once about the same dispute, but maybe this one will be sufficient to handle it, since his hands seem clearly "unclean" here. In any case, if the current AE thread can't resolve it, do you think that would mean this is better handled by Arbcom? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Undomania

Hello! Would you send me the text of this article? INSAR (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read the deleted content, I decline to provide the text. AGK 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Hans Adler exempt from the /Evidence word count limit?

Because his evidence section is currently over 3300 words long. I also have some evidence of POV pushing that will be entering later today, but I had to work hard to be selective of the most relevant issues to stay under the allowed word count limit. If I'm allowed to dissect every diff where someone said something wrong, I too could write a short novel. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am working on this. I have explained elsewhere why I am so late.

AGK, can you advise how best to proceed regarding the 46 hatted diffs? They are optimised for quick checking, but I guess this optimisation alone brings me above the word count. The entire process appears to be tailored for documenting short outbursts and prejudicial against documenting long-term low-key POV pushing or disruption, which inevitably requires a lot of diffs. Would it be acceptable to move those diffs to the talk page or elsewhere and just leave a summary? Or a link to the page history? Hans Adler 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

After posting this I found your comment on my talk page. How/whom does one ask for raising the limit? I am still wondering about the above. I think it would be a shame if I had to remove all the dates/times and all the quotations from the diffs, as they seem to make navigation much easier, but maybe that's just me. Hans Adler 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevant diffs should be presented directly in evidence; non-wikilinked references to diffs on a separate user subpage are not helpful to readers and do not conform to evidence guidelines. Mathsci (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• All evidence must be posted to the Evidence subpage of the case; talk page or userspace submissions are not permissible and will not be considered. Evidence submissions must be brief, though I am inclined to allow some leeway in the case of evidence that is of substance and that does not cover any point in excessive detail. Nevertheless, evidence that grossly disregards the length submissions, is submitted after the evidence deadline (without the express written consent of the drafting arbitrator), or is unduly partisan or malicious will be disregarded - and may be removed. I am not sure that I have anything more than this to add, in no small part because it is not my role to instruct the parties as to what evidence they should or should not include. AGK 21:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. By moving the actual analysis of Tarc's edits to the Workshop page (maybe the right place anyway?) I think I have brought the word count down to <500, though I am still waiting for the bot's verdict. I am counting 69 diffs now and a number of internal and external links (do they count as well?). 48 of these diffs are to document that Tarc's October contributions to the dispute were substantial and almost exclusively unconstructive. Not sure how to proceed from here. Hans Adler 22:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

notification of request

A heads up that I made a procedural request on the Muhammad page, here. I'm not sure if you missed it or if you saw it and are mulling it over, so just to be sure... --Ludwigs2 18:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what the analysis of evidence section of the Workshop is for? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly - please clarify if so - but if so it doesn't conform to standard discussion structures. The problem is that I've been subject to a huge quantity of attacks on my character: some of it may be valid, but most of it innuendo tossed out in the hopes that people won't read through that much material with care. the analysis of evidence section may allow rebuttal, but it does it in a context where people can rebut the rebuttals with more innuendo. It would boil down to me trying to offset poor evidence from a half dozen editors who can escalate the material a half-dozen times more effectively than I can offset it.

Any rational discussion makes safeguards against the 'dumptruck' effect (the ability to bury good comments under loads of nonsense). The 'statement/rebuttal' structure is one of the easier (and time-honored) ways to guarantee that each participant has a fair opportunity both to make statements and to defend him/herself against unjust claims, in a way that cannot be made to disappear in voluminous cross-chatter. I'll use the AoE section if that's what it comes to, but it's sub-optimal. --Ludwigs2 19:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I noticed it earlier, and you're correct that I wanted to think a little more on it. I've posted a comment there now, in which - briefly - I say I am inclined against such an idea. Regards, AGK 21:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What to do about this fellow?

I'e been monitoring the ScottyBerg stuff for a bit, and noticed a comment from PumknPi which - potentially - sought to out SB. It was followed up by what I presume was a formatting edit by the user. When I read it, I immediately sent off a message to PP, asking him to quickly self-revert (users get mega-blocked for Outting users. PumknPi responded by asking how he could out someone "already outed by CU" - an assessment which doesn't appear to be accurate. I replied that it was CU's responsibility to determine a user's identity, and not him. PumknPi's response? "Stay the fuck off my talk page".
I have absolutely no horse in this race, AGK; I don't particularly like ScottyBerg, and have never edited/interacted with PumknPi before. It's clearly pointless to expect the latter to self-revert, as SB already reverted the edits. However, I have a significant problem with anyone outting a user, especially when the matter is being discussed privately at ARBCOM precisely to avoid privacy concerns such as these.
I am unsure how to proceed, though I am sorely tempted to report the user at AN/I (esp. after their jolly little remark there at the end). I would like a little advice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Outing in the strict sense is never acceptable, of course, but I'm not sure whether Scotty's identity (as Gary) is a matter of public record on Misplaced Pages. If it is to some degree, and we are not dealing with an instance of full outing, then using ANI to request action would seem the best solution to me. If it isn't, then the Arbitration Committee should handle the incident. If you aren't sure, then you may want to err on the side of caution and contact ArbCom anyway; at that juncture, we could then confirm whether the edit can be handled by the community or not. I hope this is helpful. Regards, AGK 17:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The identity of the anonymous editor is technically unclear. He appears to be an individual who is well-versed in Wikimedia - probably a retired editor - but if he's currently editing, it's on a wholly different network (perhaps the anonymous edits are made when at work, and he logs in only at home). I'm not inclined to investigate further at this point. AGK 18:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

After a quick perusal, I saw several other editors mention 'Gary' or 'Weiss' in regards to this case, including administrators and longtime editors. Make of that what you will - Mantanmoreland was outed years ago as a consequence of his actions.

Also, remember that Mantanmoreland has a habit of running multiple socks who aid eachother, manipulating administrators along the way with pleas for help, and that he knows the ropes when it comes to using different computers. In that light, I suggest a very close look at 'Jack Sebastian'.

If you want to ban me, fine, no problem, but I won't toe the line or suck up to anyone. In hindsight, I'm now suspicious of why ScottyBerg found an excuse to comment on my talk page long before he was busted. --PumknPi (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is your comment directed at me? AGK 20:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Vee8Njinn

Was looking into the ScottyBerg stuff and saw this post on WR. Appears to be an admission that this editor is the sockmaster of Vee8.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. Regards, AGK 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Vee8Njinn is  Stale at this point, although the link with Vee8 is certainly  Possible because that account used open proxies - which was ubiquitous with the abuse by Editor XXV. AGK 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is more that someone on WR claiming to be XXV is saying he was behind those sockpuppets. Certainly makes sense given the homage to WordBomb.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Privacy

You said that "We cannot discuss checkuser evidence in public, per the Wikimedia Foundation's m:Privacy policy." . What are your views on these: , ? 94.196.127.81 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My view is that those edits (obviously) discuss the results of a checkuser investigation, not checkuser evidence itself. AGK 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Including the comments about geographical location and browser strings? I'm surprised. 94.196.169.165 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a quack

Sole edit within minutes of registering is that pesky Gary Weiss article: .--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is another seemingly obvious sock: .--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)