Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:18, 14 May 2013

"Observe how fleeting and paltry is all mortal life; yesterday a drop of mucus, tomorrow a mummy or handful of ashes. And spend these fleeting moments on earth as Nature would have you spend them, and then go to your rest with a good grace, as an olive falls in its season, with a blessing for the earth that bore it and a thanksgiving to the tree that gave it life." Where this user currently is, the time is 14:21, Sunday 29 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?

Discretionary sanctions review

Hi AGK. I recently received a notice on my talk page that the clarification request I initiated a while ago has been archived but The Arbitration Committee has indicated that they intend to review Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary Sanctions during May 2013. This indicates that Arbcom is planning to work on new wording itself.

I have to say that after starting that request, due to the response I got, I came to the conclusion that Arbcom is not the best venue for sorting out issues of this type and that they would best be left to the community. There are many unresolved ambiguities and uncertainties regarding the operation of AE that can't adequately be addressed by tweaking the wording of the existing instructions, I think what will be required is a full guideline, for complainants, respondents and administrators alike. I must say then that I am somewhat alarmed by the notion that Arbcom is planning a "review" because I'm uncomfortable with the notion of Arbcom deciding for the community how it should deal with some of these issues. At the very least, I hope this "review" will be open to community input because I think it will be needed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions is a committee-mandated, committee-controlled process, so I don't quite understand your discomfort with our taking steps to give the process a long-overdue update. Since you don't make any reference to it, perhaps you could read my draft proposed replacement for the current iteration of "standardised discretionary sanctions" and then come back to me. Regards, AGK 21:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'm afraid I missed it up to now because you took longer to reply than I anticipated.

I agree that discretionary sanctions are "committee mandated"; the point I was trying to make when I mentioned community input is that I think it unwise for the committee to attempt to redraft DS without input from the wider community, particularly from admins currently engaged at AE. This is because there are many nuanced issues to be considered that probably won't even be recognized by the committee without broader input.

With regard to your draft rewrite, I think it pretty clear that it failed to gain consensus even among the very limited number of users who chose to comment, indeed I ceased to comment on it when it seemed clear that progress on it had stalled. I'm not sure if your comment above indicates that you still propose to use this draft as the basis for a DS update, but I certainly hope that is not the case due to issues already outlined at the page not to mention other potential issues.

I might as well add at this point that after reviewing your draft, I came to the conclusion that the time has probably arrived for the addition of a full guideline for participation at AE. There is just so much confusion surrounding the workings of AE that I no longer think it practical to try and address all the outstanding issues in a few paragraphs of DS boilerplate. I had originally intended to begin a draft guideline a few weeks ago, with the intention of eventually seeking community input on it, but was unable to find the time. Unfortunately, having not given much thought to the subject over the last few weeks, I have gone a bit stale on the topic and would have to re-read and reconsider some of the older discussions before moving forward, but I'm still of the view that a guideline is probably the next logical step. Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Arcticocean a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! LovelyEdit edits 19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, LovelyEdit. Regards, AGK 22:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Patter?

Hi AGK. When I looked up your recent post to WP:ARCA from my watchlist, my eye was drawn to the post above. Patter? As in, "Glib and rapid speech, such as from an auctioneer, or banter during a sports event"? Was that what you meant to say (glib and rapid speech from User:MastCell, really..?), or is it some kind of typo? (Pattern? Parrot? Payroll? Ratsbane?) Bishonen | talk 11:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

Oops! That should have been matter. Now fixed – thanks :-). AGK 12:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Never occurred to me. :-) (Glad you didn't say you meant natter.) Bishonen | talk 12:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC).

Golden Wiki

		The Golden Wiki
		For dedication and hard work behind the scenes. SilkTork 18:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SilkTork! This was very kind of you. Best, AGK 22:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Race and politics parties

In my statement in the race and politics case, I said if the case is accepted I would present some evidence about ArtifexMayhem's editing of the articles covered by the case. But the case doesn't include him as a party, even though he is one of the people in the dispute. Does that mean I can't present evidence about him, or if I do Arbcom will not be allowed to act on it? Akuri (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)