Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giano (talk | contribs) at 14:02, 14 March 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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 21:23, Friday 17 January 2025. 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".

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

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)

I have revised my opinion. Just passing along an FYI to someone who is not making trouble at all should not open the door to sudden AE sanctions. On the other hand, mentioned an ARB ruling should be freely encouraged at no risk to the person spreading the word. Prevention not punishment! But to actually open the door to AE, there should first be a showing of a problem and an uninvolved administrator warning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do keep me in the loop on this. The ongoing dispute with Sandstein at WP:ARCA about this is so old it's been archived, and in the interim I've been (unjustly in my view) subject to sanctions at WP:AE, by Sandstein's, with part of the underlying basis for them being Sandstein's own "warning", i.e. accusation, mentioned above. I'm declining to edit WP in any way other than toward resolving this dispute until it is resolved. Sandstein's suggestion that there's nothing "urgent" is self-serving (in effect if not intent), and it's been well over a month now since this mess started. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 23:43, 12 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)

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

• My talk page is not a venue for dispute resolution. Please stop this discussion. Thank you, AGK 12:06, 12 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)

Me again. If you are not already intending to do so, it would also be worthwhile to clarify whether DS require a warning (or separate notification) even to users already aware of the case, as discussed at . Thanks,  Sandstein  05:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

When you get a chance

Tom Harrison 12:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

resolved --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of MZMcBride

Hi -

Unless you plan on removing all the other links (as MZMcBride pointed out, there are 207 on en.wikipedia) and add the site to the SBL and or create an AbuseFilter, that would be the most appropriate. Singling out one user for adding a site that others apparently are allowed to link to isn't right. Not sure how you can defend yourself here. You also failed to include a block reason in the log. Aside from that, I don't think the block is valid and plan to proceed as so, pending other information. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he pointed out the other 207 links in order to be helpful, but he did so on a high-traffic community page that is watched by hundreds of the outed editor's colleagues. That's one of the most significant reasons why his actions in this case were so damaging. As I explained, the problem isn't that the site exists. It's that he's going out of his way to draw his attention to the site, and in particular to the offending page on that site. You haven't made it clear why a block is unnecessary, so I'd be grateful if you could consider this response and then clarify your position. AGK 19:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your block isn't preventing anything. Use an AbuseFilter or the spam blacklist. If the site was not already linked 200 times, that would be a completely different story. But this singling out is completely inappropriate and on that grounds, this block is pretty unjustifiable. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I have explained, several times, what the block is preventing; but I will reiterate my position more plainly. How on earth would one use an AbuseFilter or the spam blacklist to prevent people from linking to Special:LinkSearch, and is it even appropriate to block an iteration of one of our special pages in place of simply blocking the one user who is pointedly forcing us into this corner? Obviously not, on both counts. The site hasn't always carried personal information about a contributor in such a prominent position, and won't always in future. It merely does carry such information at this particular point, and for that reason our editors should not be linking to it on a public noticeboard and in as obvious a manner as they can. If they do, they are quite directly outing that other editor; that isn't changed by the fact that the "outing" is hosted on a non-Misplaced Pages page. This isn't about policing the internet, or about BADSITES. It's about honouring the Outing policy and showing a modicum of respect for our contributors. That is why the block was made. AGK 20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Stand down now!

You may or may not be sanctioned for your unilateral BADSITES banning of Wikipediocracy against consensus (See Village Pump), this remains to be seen. You have certainly proven yourself unworthy of the trust of a member of Misplaced Pages's highest body, ArbCom. I encourage you to resign your ArbCom seat immediately. Thank you. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Insofar as my opinion matters here, I disagree with the above. I think it is quite appropriate for an administrator to block users who violate WP:OUTING by repeatedly posting external links to outing websites.  Sandstein  05:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. It is a shame, but as an arb, AGK is supposed to take the flack that occurs when the supporters of a group in a dispute are upset, and AGK was given no alternative other than to act to protect the policies that avoid the community spiraling out of control as attacks are made by one side on another. AGK is not supposed to think "Well the person being outed might deserve it, so I'll ignore that blatant trolling". If someone repeatedly posts links to a website that attacks me, I hope they will be indeffed (after a warning)—indeffed until they give a plausible indication that they understand policy and will not do anything like that again. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Sandstein. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you both agree that blocking users who link to outing other users is appropriate. This has exactly nothing to do with what I am talking about. AGK apparently attempted to sneak Wikipediocracy onto the banned sites list at WP, then, when that failed, is said to have attempted to craft a filter which prohibited the mention of Wikipediocracy, per LINK. Any comments on this AGK? These strike me as sneaky shenanigans against consensus which are in no way befitting of the behavior the community expects of an ArbCom member... Are the allegations false? Carrite (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether I agree with AGK, or any other arb, for heaven's sake, this community has to stop attacking arbs because we don't like decisions they make. We have a group of arbs, many people with many backgrounds and points of view who sit as arbs together, collaborative, and relying on consensus rather than unilateral actions to make decisions. This helps to creates balance. We have no right to wear them out with personal attacks, with attempts at every turn in the road to drag them from their positions. As a community we have to be able to agree or disagree with the arbs and their positions, but our civility policy applys to them too. True incivility is disregarding other human beings and thinking that because we disagree we have the right to demand resignations, to treat other people with disrespect and disdain. We are Misplaced Pages, and we are responsible for its easy function, or lack there of, for its success or downfall. Misplaced Pages will not rise or fall based on any single arb's position, but It will rise or fall if its community behaves like a mob with a mob mentality. We will chase a way not only arbs, but anyone in a right mind. Who could possibly want to work, or could work productively in such an environment?(olive (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

We should no more stop being critical of arbs and their actions, when these are criticism worthy, than regular people need to stop being critical of politicians out there in the real world. I haven't seen any arbs be "attacked" though.Volunteer Marek 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Carrite, I think not. To begin with your basic premise that I circumvented a community consensus, I was not aware of the VP discussion until after I edited the Blacklist (I am one of very many contributors who do not follow events at the Village Pumps). When my attention was drawn to the discussion, I immediately reverted my change to the Blacklist. With that premise discredited, everything else you have said seems like pointless browbeating me to. I note it is treatment of this nature that led, in part, to one of my colleagues on the committee to retire from editing just yesterday. Please consider the purpose of treating your fellow contributors in this manner; I certainly don't think it is an acceptable or productive way to do things, but the mileage of you and others may well vary. AGK 09:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to comment

AGK, I have posed some questions about your actions in regard to the blacklisting of Wikipediocracy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I see quite a lot of misunderstanding about the AbuseFilter. The filter was never enabled; I created it to see what edits it would have blocked had it been active. I would not have enabled such a far-reaching filter without community permission (because, unlike with the Spam Blacklist, administrators aren't allowed to unilaterally build hyperlinks into an AbuseFilter). For example, BlackKite seems to be under the impression that I was shopping around for ways to block WO after I removed it from the Blacklist; this is both incorrect on the face of it, and also derives from the mistaken belief that I created the Filter after I edited the Blacklist—which I did not. The other conclusions he comes to are also incorrect. Also, the Filter was never active, and it has since been deleted by another administrator. I think your accusations have been adequately rebutted by other members of the community, so I will not engage in protracted discussion on this issue unless there is some undiscussed point that you need me to clarify. I also do not wish to edit the noticeboard talk page thread at this point, because this issue has nothing to do with my work as an arbitrator. Thank you for having the courtesy to draw my attention to the thread; I appreciate that. AGK 09:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey AGK; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

MZMcBride

Hello AGK. Long time no see as they say! Please could you confirm whether the MZMcBride block was an ArbCom block or an ordinary administrator block. I'm fairly sure it was a simple administrator block but I'd like clarification as I've offered to unblock MZMcBride should he make a commitment not to link to Wikipediocracy, or make any attempts at outing another editor. Clarification would be much appreciated. I hope things are well for you. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found my answer - It was just an ordinary admin block. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I think I clarified at ANI what type of block this is. For what it's worth, after I blocked MZMcBride, I made it clear I would unblock him if he gave a credible commitment not to so flagrantly circulate links that "out" the editor in question. I really hope he makes such a promise. AGK 09:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko

Hi. You recently made a checkuserblock on User talk:108.28.162.125 (for being a sock of indef blocked Kumioko). Can you do the same for User talk:108.18.194.128? It's an obvious WP:DUCK, but I can't block him as I'm clearly involved. Fram (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, AGK 09:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers

Misplaced Pages should not be a Gestapo type state . It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)