This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 14:06, 14 January 2013 (→LCahill SPI: response to Elizium23). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:06, 14 January 2013 by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) (→LCahill SPI: response to Elizium23)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
"It is the stupidest children who are the most childish and the stupidest grown-ups who are the most grown-up."
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". |
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Two-factor authentication for page movers
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
Oversight please
User:Wales asked me to communicate by email and then outed me on his talk page here. Please revert it. Thanks. Jojalozzo 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Next time please see WP:RFO for instructions on how to request oversight. We don't request oversight onwiki as that draws more attention to the information that should be kept private. --Rschen7754 22:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Jojalozzo, that edit was suppressed since you posted here, but you must observe what Rschen has said: oversight requests are never, ever posted on-site. Please read Misplaced Pages:Oversight and Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight (WP:RFO). Rschen, thanks for your assistance here. Regards, AGK 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Dissapointment
I'm rather perplexed in your dissapointment. When an editor reaches 3RR on an article and then a ip editor subs in what is a reasonable editor to expect? Do you expect that if I asked Insomesia about edting logged out that they would willingly admit to crossing 3RR? In fact anyone reasonably familiar with Insomesia would know that they game the system, and did so on the article in question. Your logging of your dissapointment in the SPI was most decidedly uncool. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- He did not breach the limit of 3RR. Moreover, he made no attempt to hide the edit summary of his "fourth" revert. My expression of disappointment was a proportional response to your failure to do the professional, sensible thing by simply asking Insomesia not to do this again in future. AGK 08:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- LGR you have a lot a nerve accusing anyone of gaming things, and I'll add my astonishment that you went to this trouble and didn't even bother to notify me. The edit in question, by the way was removed by consensus after you and Belchfire continued to argue that consensus was to keep it there and tag-teamed to install it. I insisted we actually get consensus before re-adding. The good news is that the entire article is being looked at by more editors. Insomesia (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- @AGK Going with your charitable premise that Insomesia accidentally logged out to perform the edit, I can see how you can draw that conclusion. Prior behavioral evidence suggests otherwise. If you think the "fourth" revert was not an attempt to dance around 3RR, then one of us miscounted. Regards. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)- Rosetta, 3RR is "three reverts per article per day". A day is 24 hours. Insomesia's reverts were dated as follows:
- The anonymous revert was dated 03:10, 1 January 2013. There are 31 days in December, so no four reverts took place within the same twenty-four hours. Have I miscounted, or have you?
In any event, as an administrator (when I was found at AN3, as I no longer am) I entirely disregarded the three-revert rule, finding it a silly rule that caused more drama than anything else. However, that is immaterial: you wrongly suggested that Insomesia had, as a motive for socking, a need to subvert the three-revert rule. My point was that he did not, which has an effect on how we must consider the allegation that he deliberately edited while logged-out. Even now that he states the anonymous edit was not him, I am happy to believe him, and I counsel you to do likewise. We must assume the best of our colleagues, until they give us reason to do otherwise. If you cannot assume the best, then I kindly submit that you are too impassioned to edit the article, or with the contributors, in question—and that you ought to edit another one for a while. I do not expect you to answer me on that point; I merely hope you give serious thought to it. Regards, AGK 15:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- My personal views in the article in question are probably exactly in line of that with Insomesia, so passion has nothing to do with my edits. AGF can only be taken so far. I wouldn't expect someone not familiar with the particulars to see it, nor would I want them too, but I would expect them to understand that others may have cause to have lost good faith. I'll try and keep your concern noted for the future. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- My personal views in the article in question are probably exactly in line of that with Insomesia, so passion has nothing to do with my edits. AGF can only be taken so far. I wouldn't expect someone not familiar with the particulars to see it, nor would I want them too, but I would expect them to understand that others may have cause to have lost good faith. I'll try and keep your concern noted for the future. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
- @AGK Going with your charitable premise that Insomesia accidentally logged out to perform the edit, I can see how you can draw that conclusion. Prior behavioral evidence suggests otherwise. If you think the "fourth" revert was not an attempt to dance around 3RR, then one of us miscounted. Regards. little green rosetta(talk)
RFAR case
I have made some comments about the naming of the case that I think you should consider. Seems that this will only really focus on conduct relating to one topic area and thus I have suggested a name that would better reflect that. An editor's reasonable desire to not have an ArbCom case named especially for them should be considered with this in mind. When you have a viable alternative name that can avoid systemic bias against a single editor then I think it is preferable to go with that alternative name.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- AGK - Sorry, this is just my heartfelt apology for my error and for being such a nosey so and so; my lesson is truly learned
I'll go away now..... SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- For my part, the problem with your suggested alternative of NRHP is that it is inaccurate: the case isn't merely about that topic area, but about that among others. If there was a single obvious, brief title then I'd happily use it as the case title; regretfully, there is not, so picking the editor who is the one common denominator in all the disputes is what we shall go with. Thanks for your comments.
Phil, I confess I've no idea why you've left that comment. Where were you nosey? Why are you apologising? (If I've forgotten some recent interaction between us, please enlighten me and forigve my density.) Regards to you both, AGK 21:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Busted, AGK. Now we know you don't read your talkpage history! Bishonen | talk 23:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC).
- Ahh. Don't worry about it, Phil. For all Apple's hype, iOS has to be one of the fiddliest interfaces ever. Bishonen, who has time to read their talk page history? And thanks for catching me up :-). AGK 23:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Time? Time? It's my favourite reading on Misplaced Pages! Beats the talkpage itself by some margin. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC).
- Ahh. Don't worry about it, Phil. For all Apple's hype, iOS has to be one of the fiddliest interfaces ever. Bishonen, who has time to read their talk page history? And thanks for catching me up :-). AGK 23:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Busted, AGK. Now we know you don't read your talkpage history! Bishonen | talk 23:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC).
- For my part, the problem with your suggested alternative of NRHP is that it is inaccurate: the case isn't merely about that topic area, but about that among others. If there was a single obvious, brief title then I'd happily use it as the case title; regretfully, there is not, so picking the editor who is the one common denominator in all the disputes is what we shall go with. Thanks for your comments.
- AGK - Sorry, this is just my heartfelt apology for my error and for being such a nosey so and so; my lesson is truly learned
PSY article no longer functioning properly
Hi there. A few hours ago an admin redirected/moved the PSY article to Psy. Apparently the redirect wasn't done properly as all other links to PSY now land in the disambiguation page. Also, the PSY_(entertainer) link leads to the dis page. I don't know much about redirects and how to correct them. Could you please take a look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds as though you have found some double redirects. I'm afraid I don't have time to look into this in more detail, but there is some useful advice within that link on resolving such a problem. However, the administrator that moved the page should have did this himself, particularly if he (or she) is moving a Misplaced Pages article and not a page in a less important namespace. Regards, AGK 11:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks for that informative link. Amsaim (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
LCahill SPI
Hi, in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/LCahill you wrote: LCahill is probably editing while logged-out, but he is doing nothing actually illicit. Therefore, we here at SPI can do nothing helpful with this complaint. I recommend that you take the matter to an administrators' noticeboard and request that LCahill's anonymous editing be investigated by a group of administrators and that the community consider sanctioning him. This confuses me - if he is doing nothing illicit, then what would the community sanctions be for? And I have shown that the vast majority of his contributions were copyvios; wouldn't that be illicit? Can the community sanction him for that? I was under the impression that the proper venue next would be WP:CCI but that is a bridge I wanted to cross when I came to it. Elizium23 (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think I misspoke. When I said that we at SPI can do nothing for this guy, I meant that we can, but that the matter is better handled by the ANI folk. This matter transcends mere anonymous sock-puppetry and needs an in-depth review. AGK 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)