Jump to content

User talk:Arcticocean

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kingsindian (talk | contribs) at 01:35, 5 November 2018 (→‎Onceinawhile: 3 points). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contributions
Action Count
Edits 54362
Deletions 3301
Blocks 2661
Protections 7936
68260


you were here

I saw you! that's all :) Privatemusings (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom

I've been clearing up some of my subpages and I came across this on my userbox subpage. I vaguely remember taking AGK way back in the day. A little under ten years ago... I guess I shouldn't call myself the 'new guy' anymore. Mkdw talk 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Medcom box

Template:Medcom box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Missing Wikipedians

I've added your name to the list linked above due to inactivity. Please remember to remove yourself if you return. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Request

Template:Request has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Hi AGK, nice to see edits from you again! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Callanecc! Not really back, but still around :). AGK [•] 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very glad to hear that. Any chance you could help with a template you worked on? Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Updating Template:Ds/talk notice to make it clearer. If you think you can be of any help, please email me for more details of how it should probably go. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My ArbCom election votes

Without putting together a full guide, I did want to publish my candidate assessments. Hopefully floating voters, inexperienced participants, and interested bystanders find this useful:

  • Premediated Chaos: Support
  • KrakatoaKatie: Support
  • RickinBaltimore: Support
  • The Rambling Man: Oppose. Most capable in the past, but lost the temperament needed for this role. The 'kiss' valediction in particular, for me, writes off TRM.
  • Opabinia regalis: Support.
  • Alex Shih: Oppose. Appears to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of ArbCom.
  • SMcCandlish: Support.
  • Callanecc: Support.
  • Sir Joseph: Oppose. Quixotic. They will distract and delay the committee's work, or arbitration will eat them alive. In either case, despite the enthusiasm I do not think this editor can be of service.
  • BU Rob13: Oppose. I do not know much at all about this editor, so cannot support. However, reviewing their history and candidacy leaves me uncomfortable for reasons I don't think I can explain. I was pushed to oppose from general reluctance to elect this candidate, at least this year and until they have further history.
  • Worm That Turned: Support.
  • Mailer Diablo: Support.

Regards,
AGK [•] 22:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Community article probation

Template:Community article probation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. : Noyster (talk), 20:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new important factor to Infobox pageant titleholder

I Appreciate your contributions, However When I see the Template:Infobox pageant titleholder it is a great work but still miss an important factor witch is the measurements, the mensuration of the pageant's body is a primary think in models, pageants ex. Thanks

requesting advice on how to deal with another editor who deletes my edits but won't engage in a conversation

Dear AGK,

I have tried adding text to an article about a very interesting topic in physics (I'm a university physics professor). There were recently two papers published in a very reputable physics journal (Physics Review) on the subject and I thought it worth updating the Wikipedia article on that subject. When I made the edit, another editor nearly immediately jumped in a deleted my edit, saying that "Original research is not appropriate for inclusion in either article space or talk space" By looking for the term "original research" on Wikipedia I came to understand this to mean unpublished work. Of course, this was not unpublished. When I tried using the talk page of the article to help the other editor understand the error, I received no response for a couple of days. So I rewrote my edit, emphasizing that I was reporting on two articles recently published in Phys Rev. Again the editor deleted my edit but did not justify the action, rather chided me for reposting. My attempt to engage on the article's talk page went unanswered again, so I tried the other editor's talk page, but received a rebuke there as well.

Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect

You can see some of what happened on the last section of the talk page ("Latest information on the A-B effect").

You can see a second editor added a brief note affirming the same (incorrect) assertion about "original research". This second editor has also not responded to my attempts to engage.

So I am left befuddled. I believe that my attempted edit is entirely proper and unobjectionable, but my attempt to help the other editor see this has not met with any sort of conversation.

I'm new to Wikipedia and have not figured out how to resolve this. I am certain that anyone who reads that article would want to know about the two new papers directly related to the subject. I would be happy to learn how to proceed.

Best regards, Murray Daw

Edit rollback

Hi AGK, I’m writing to ask you to review my contribution and subsequent rollback in its entirety.

When I first read the wiki entry “solstice” and was confused by a particular paragraph.

I rewrote the paragraph so as to be much more understandable.

The reason given for the rollback was:

“not an improvement; the su[n] is never directly overhead outside the tropics—clarification is needed for the 2 days inside tropics”

If you read my final edit you can see that indeed I state explicitly that the sun is overhead only within the tropics. As to overall clarity of my contribution—and after its rollback—I ask you to be the judge.

It is disheartening to know that contributions can be swept aside so casually—and for the wrong reasons—and disregarded completely by a single person with power to do so. It makes potential contributors & editors think twice before spending valuable time to edit.

I presume you have access to my last edit so I will not reproduce it here.

Re. my credentials, I was a technical writer in Silicon Valley for 15 years covering many complex topics.

I welcome your comments.

Thank you, Dave C. (Wiki name “Motherships”) 99.189.168.179 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santamoly AE

I am not sure I understand what you mean in the closing statement [1], I must be missing something. The alert was given on 20 February and not by me. All other diffs are later. After I suggested that the user should not edit articles related to Ukrainian topics they first kept to talk pages, but then they started editing articles, and this is why I filed the AE request.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After editing thousands articles since the first days of Wikipedia, I was a bit non-plussed after running into my first aggressive political censorship attempts by Ukrainian activists in the Crimean article. I was only interested in the bridge structure, not the politics. Even on the Talk pages, where the edit supporters outnumbered the Ukrainian Activists, the activists can actually succeed in controlling the article. I had not seen this before in Wikipedia, and I'm still amazed that the activists can create fictitious content. Now I need to find out the limits of the censorship ban. Are you able to direct me to discussion on the limits of a "topic ban, broadly interpreted"? In other words, how to edit without unleashing partisan censorship? Santamoly (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AGK: You had me indefinitely topic banned from eastern europe and not sure how this type of ban works. Are you able to explain? I found this template on the appeal page, but I'm not sure how to use it and the instructions aren't clear:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <Username>== <small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small> <p><small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small></p> ; Appealing user : {{userlinks|<Username>}} – [[User:Santamoly|Santamoly]] ([[User talk:Santamoly|talk]]) 07:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC) ; Sanction being appealed : <Text> ; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|<Username>}} ; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.'' ===Statement by <Username>=== <Your text> ===Statement by <Username>=== ===Statement by (involved editor 1)=== ===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== ===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <Username> === ===Result of the appeal by <Username>=== :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' <!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. --> *

My question is: where do I submit the questions or appeal regarding the topic ban? The ban is quite vague and large (it appears to be a ban on editing anything to do with half the world!) Any suggestions gratgefully feceived, Thanks, Santamoly Santamoly (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiSky}}

Would you be willing to set edit & move protection to Template protection ? This will still cover the Highly-visible template issues. There's this discussion that I would like to action. Thanx for your time. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: No problem.  Completed. AGK [•] 10:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

belated welcome

Hi. Nice to see you back. I hope you stay for a very verrrry long time. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Usernamekiran! AGK [•] 17:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

Hi there, I had a page deleted before I even had time to put it up properly. I had a long argument with the deleting editor. In short (very short!), it appeared that by declaring a conflict of interest, I had doomed myself to immediate deletion - no quarter given, no questions asked. I feel this is unfair, there was no interest in the content or suitability of the article, the only stumbling block was my own conflict of interest. I have subsequently learned that - despite Wikipedia asking you to do so - declaring a conflict of interest leads to immediate deletion with no discussion. This is really bad. What made it worse was that the deleting editor was rude, insulting and contemptuous, there was no attempt to discuss the merits of otherwise of the article, it was all about attacks on me personally and my own ethics and honesty. I felt as if I had been caught selling crack to pre-schoolers. It was a horrible experience. I still feel, however, that the article has merit as an encyclopedia entry. How do I fix this? Obviously you are going to want more information, but I really just wanted to get the conversation started. Niki Moore (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Niki. I see that you copied this query to a number of editors, and one has now answered at your talk page. Let me know if you need any more help. AGK [•] 20:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thor's Axe

Hey AGK. At User talk:Thor's Axe the block notice says indef, but the block itself is only for 31 hours. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's good to see you back!.. Now I have someone to bother whenever there is an interesting issue with the discretionary sanctions alerting system. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: Re-blocked to indef. Thanks on both fronts – good to be back! AGK [•] 18:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you were going on this edit as a reason to believe socking, you should be aware that the reference to User:Bonadea in the edits summary suggests that User:Thors' Axe1 could be a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. He has been joe-jobbing at noticeboards lately to get others in trouble. I have no idea about Kapilitoo. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AGK. I've just been cleaning up some Nsmutte mess. So I can tell you per CU that Thor's Axe and Thor's Axe2 are one user, while Thor's Axe1 and Thor's Axe3 are an Nsmutte joe-job. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Kapilitoo is another Nsmutte joe-job. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion there - are there any others you'd like me to check? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, there is a banned serial sockpuppeteer who watches for users recently blocked for socking in order to create fake socks of that blocked user? It is still so strange to me that there are people wasting their time like that… I think we're all good, @Zzuuzz – I only found Thor's Axe and Kapilitoo. Many thanks, AGK [•] 00:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we no longer believe User:Thor's Axe is a sockmaster (except for Thor's Axe2 which has no edits) is the way clear to lift his block, since his original 48 hours have expired? By the way, User:Thor's Axe5 looks to be another Nsmutte sock. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain about numbers 1, 3, and 5. I am also certain that number 2 was created by the original while they were editing, in the style of a - so far - legit alt account. So my recommendation would be that socking accusations against Thor's Axe are nullified - unblocked if you think that's appropriate given other things. I'm happy to follow up unblocking #2. What may interest you is that there are two LTAs using precisely this MO. The other is Architect 134. They typically both follow AN3 and cause trouble accordingly. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston and Zzuuzz: First, I consent to the indef. being dropped down at any point if we think that action will be effective enough. However, my re-block of Thor's Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was initially precipitated by the evasion through Kapilitoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is that account also forgery? AGK [•] 14:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely Nsmutte. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Completed – unblocked. Thanks both, AGK [•] 15:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wish to clarify a few things. I understand this is a broad for the discussions between administrators, but I still think it would be ideal to let you know my situation. I started my first edit on 23rd September and created my account by that time. Then out of curiosity, and after being warned for edit warring, I was thinking about setting up a back up account (by that time I was not aware that multiple account abusing was prohibited), and that one is Thor's Axe2. I am okay if you wish to keep only one account for me. But my using the same user name as Thor's Axe 1, 3, 5and user Kapilitoo is completely coincidental. When I registered the account I was not given a suggestion to read the names of registered users. And I used to think there were many users and it is fine to have two user names almost exactly the same (which led to confusion in this case). Thor's Axe (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was also some debate between me and administrator Kleuske on the talk page on Transition..... I admit that I was rather emotional by that time and was not very clear about the rules. My last few edit based on the suggestion of user Simonm223, and I did a vision of the links. Thor's Axe (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page - AGK [•] 13:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can you block me ?

 Remark: Content removed – banned user evasion. AGK [•] 15:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for TheOdd1sOut

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TheOdd1sOut. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zoom (talk page) 17:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Dear AGK,

Thank you for approving my permission for Rollback rights. It was highly appreciated and would allow me to extensively fight vandalism.

Regards! Denver| Thank you (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: note at page protection for Nilo Cruz article

What could you possibly be talking about? The source says Cruz is “openly gay”; the anonymous users want the info removed; I and others want the properly sourced info to stay. You seem confused about who is saying what. This is a blatantly obvious case of homophobic vandalism. And, btw, you might have noticed that the vandals have refused to go to the talk page. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Antinoos69: Noted, thanks. The lead still does not seem like an appropriate place for that content. AGK ■ 10:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3rr closure

Could you clarify why you closed the FoLandra report as No Action? –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dlthewave. The 3-revert rule (3RR) is not quite so clear-cut when it applies to the editor's own discussion.The editor raised similar questions to those already under discussion on the article talk page. Additionally, when the comment made its way into the talk page (on the occasion posting it was not reverted), other editors readily engaged with it. I was not convinced that the talk page comment content was a clear violation of WP:BLP, and therefore I declined to apply the 3RR to the editor's conduct in forcing the comment through to the talk page. AGK ■ 17:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That seems reasonable, especially since the editor hasn't been active since. –dlthewave ☎ 17:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Macedon

Thank you for locking History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). As you are well aware, the articles concerning the Greece-Macedonia border region are contentious and subject to the influence of real-world events. A long-standing consensus has existed (since about 2010) to leave the word "Greek" out of the first sentence of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Rise of Macedon, and History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Almost immediately after the controversial results of the name referendum in Macedonia a week ago anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts began showing up at Rise of Macedon to add "Hellenic" or "Greek" against consensus in the first sentence. After Rise of Macedon was locked for 4 days, these IPs and SPAs moved to History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). After you locked that article, they have now moved back to Rise of Macedon. I suspect that there is off-site canvassing going on since both of the last two SPAs have made a couple of edits on other pages and then zeroed in on Rise of Macedon with virtually identical edits on Talk:Rise of Macedon--original research without any accompanying discussion. This seems to be part of a concerted effort at History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Rise of Macedon based on reactions to real-world events. Would you consider locking Rise of Macedon as well (of course at the consensus wording that doesn't include "Greek" or "Hellenic" in the first sentence)? I seem to recall that at some point in the past we were on opposite sides of a Macedonian-related issue. I'm sure that you recognize the value of a consensus that has survived since 2010 in this contentious region. Sadly we can almost set our watches by real-world events and see the anonymous IPs and SPAs arrive at Macedonia-related articles within the first 24 hours. I would appreciate your consideration of this complex attempt by potential sockpuppets and canvassed SPAs to subvert WP:CONSENSUS without accompanying Talk Page engagement. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TaivoLinguist. You've mentioned they, which I am taking to mean a constant set of users. I would be inclined at this stage to recommend an enforcement action under WP:BALKANS#Standard discretionary sanctions. You can request enforcement action at WP:AE. This advice is given without having reviewed your account for accuracy. AGK ■ 20:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. --Taivo (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning might be logged

Hello AGK. Your warning to ContentEditman might be logged in WP:DSLOG/2018 so that it's not overlooked by future closers. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I didn't log because I suppose it is not an enforcement action. Warnings about conduct on the noticeboard itself are a meta or housekeeping matter, whereas DSLOG is for matters relating to arbitration decisions. To quote the log's preface (emphasis mine):

This is the central log for all sanctions issued pursuant to an Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions remedy

What do you think? Perhaps we ought to create a section at the end ("Noticeboard matters") or a separate log, sitting alongside those for each calendar year. I agree that these things need to be easily found by future closers, and do not want to seem like I am asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? AGK ■ 19:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: Something of this sort came up again – I logged it like so. AGK ■ 17:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed your warning, and I agree. The wording of WP:AC/DS is quite broad, and you might think that a warning about misuse of AE is one of the things that an admin might do, to help fix a situation in one of the contested areas. ("..any sanction, restriction, or other remedy placed under this procedure".) Though it is funny to think of a warning as a 'sanction'. Perhaps some day the committee might tweak the wording to make it sound more natural. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hafarah

Hiya. I didn't knowingly revert any closure of the Hafarah - or any other - AfD. Sorry if that has happened somehow - an edit conflict perhaps? Close away, please do! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert template

The only alert template is Template:Ds/alert.In your view this is not enough to make the user aware of 500/300 restriction. If yes what template you propose to use?--Shrike (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have started WP:ARCA about this matter [2]--Shrike (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for blocking GlobalPoliticalCulture for disruptive editing (again). Could you also block WarrenSanders2020, their sock? Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 16:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Master and sock blocked indefinitely. AGK ■ 17:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to the topic ban with reason

Hello. I was recently topic banned after an AE sanction was applied on me. I wish to request that this sanction be overturned because I acted in all good faith. There might have been issues in the past that some of you think are not a good way to edit but when the editor gave me a notification that the topic area was under sanctions, on my talk page. I did take notice of it and did proceed with even more caution. This can be better understood from the fact that I also added a talk page comment. I did not repeatedly recreate it. Infact, I first had a discussion with the editor. You can see my talk page comment on the creation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khafd

Infact, long before creating the page, I started a talk page discussion on that page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khafd&oldid=828993431

It was reverted by User:SlimVirgin and the talk page turned into a redirect. My comment wasn't moved as far as I remember. Infact I was told that I should go and comment on the main topic's talk page. I asked for a self revert which wasn't made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muffizainu#Discretionary_sanctions_alert ... I did not create a disturbance over breaking of these rules of editing out others' comments and and went ahead to add the the talk page discussion to the page asked again ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation&diff=prev&oldid=829409243 ).

Now if you look at the Khafd comment, it got archived, no one objected or cared (to me it appeared that I was only being filibustered, but I followed rules): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation/Archive_2

So you can see that I created the Khafd article in all good faith and would have been more than happy to follow wikipedia rules and discuss if some one choose to take this article to AFD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khafd ) as I clearly said. If some one felt I was in the wrong, I would totally respect consensus. But - instead of getting consensus, an AE sanction was requested. Then, instead of AFD, the article was redirected back in a revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khafd&action=history - it is wrong ot by pass consensus and due process by getting the opposing editor sanctioned and then reverting the article single handedly. Given that I was not banned while the article was created, it should still have been taken to AFD instead of a revert. I hope that shows you atleast a bit that there's been some presumptuous behaviour and not fair discussion.

I'm certain that you agree that it is not right to get your opponents blocked/banned than to discuss. If they were finding it difficult to discuss with me alone, they could have simple started an AFD.

As you were the blocking admin, I respect your standing and am bringing this issue to you before I take this to WP:AN to appeal as I feel that in all fairness, you can revert my ban and instead allow me to discuss the article at AFD. If neutral editors disagree, I will not be the one to edit war. I will go back to research references. Muffizainu (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, ping SlimVirgin. It is good etiquette these days to ping an editor you are mentioning. Whilst SV is welcome to comment here, I do not expect input.

@Muffizainu: I sanctioned you because your edits seriously damaged the integrity of our articles. Whether consensus existed, or whether you first sought consensus, to make those edits is irrelevant. There are some things that consensus cannot override. Your motivation for making the edits you did – your acting in good faith, as you say – is also not immediately relevant. The only questions put to me in any enforcement request are (A) whether your conduct disrupts Wikipedia, and (B) if so, whether you can be prevented from doing so again without a sanction. A great many would-be participants of Wikipedia act, to their mind, with the best of intentions. See WP:Righting great wrongs. AGK ■ 17:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I completely understand. And if editors disagreed, I would completely abide by consensus. I'm only saying that it is not right for admins to enforce content as editors are supposed to enforce content, admins are only supposed to keep editors in line. I or another editor should at least have the right to create an article (or make an edit) and have it rejected by another set of editors before it is even though to be disruptive. This is especially with the fact that I'm ready to accept any consensus. But is it right not to let an editor even seek consensus, by the way of sanction?
I hope that has some logic and you would allow me to recreate the article (and go through an AFD if you wish), by lifting the sanction at least temporarily. If not, I will have to request at WP:AN, but I do feel you should entertain a reasonable request? Muffizainu (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muffizainu: No, sorry: I deny that request to be temporarily exempted from the sanction and I deny the broader appeal.
If you post at AN, it must be solely to further appeal sanctions in the prescribed way. You may not argue your views on the underlying real-life issues under the auspices of an administrative discussion. You may not seek an editorial consensus in support of your preferred viewpoint.
Finally, I am going to remind you one last time, because what I just said doesn't seem to have fully landed. Whether or not you are accepting of consensus is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not conceive of a consensus that excuses the selective use of sourcing to manipulate the neutrality of articles. That you would think to look for one rather illustrates the type of misconduct that resulted in enforcement action. AGK ■ 10:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, I have mentioned the ban of Muffizainu in this thread at AN, where another editor is asking to have his own FGM ban lifted. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Html tags vs. wikitext

Hello AGK,

If you're going to use HTML tags as you did here at WT:CIVIL, then please understand how the HTML syntax works. In particular, each opening element, like a <p> element requires a matching </p> element at the end of the paragraph. However, using the p-tag is not advisable, as it's too easy to forget to add the ending tag, as you did twice in that edit (I've fixed them for you). However, you can achieve the same result more easily via wikitext by simply inserting an empty line to generate a new paragraph. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I understood that Sanitizer.php closes the tag in use cases like this. Why would my unclosed <p> matter, if you know? AGK ■ 13:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It breaks syntax coloring, which is helpful, when it works. I didn't know about Sanitizer; if that really works, then based on the timestamp of your change, and when I posted the comment above, perhaps I just didn't wait long enough. Same thing with "<br>" (should be: "<br />"). Either way though, nbd. Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Crawford article deletion

Hi AGK -

I wanted to reach out and explain the backstory to the 2018 Rah Crawford wikipedia creation - I would like to post this on the record related to this article, but the deletion discussion / history has been closed. If you could direct me to the best way to post it, I would appreciate it!


Here's the back story. This user account WO1977 has had 2 editors using it (I reached out to editors because I have little wiki experience).

1st Editor -Hired an editor to create bio for Rah Crawford. -User WO1977 was created. -We worked with this editor June 21, 2017 - September 28, 2017 -The editor wrote a bio and submitted the bio to Art History Archive and Wikipedia in June/July of 2017. -When the article in Wikipedia was flagged for plagiarism because of the art history archive entry we mentioned that it was the same author, but also made some updates to the Wikipedia entry so as to not look like an article on Wikipedia was plagiarized. -This was the first article that this editor created for Wikipedia.


2nd Editor -Over 6 months passed, a new editor reached out to us via email saying that they could update the article so it would meet Wikipedia guidelines. -The second editor worked through April 26, 2018 - September 18, 2018 -This editor asked to use the user WO1977 for the changes and updates. -The editor made changes and updates, and unfortunately it seems the methods in which the editor used to try to get the article accepted were not in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines.

Now, the article has since been deleted, and has a creation protection on it.


I've learned a lot through this process, and have only responded until now because I was working on the latest project with Rah Crawford. A film that was created about his new art period was accepted into an international film festival.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.bushwickfilmfestival.com/11th-annual-bushwick-film-festival/2018/9/12/blockchain-and-sharing-the-financial-load-for-your-passion-projectCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://thecreativecrypto.com/showing-of-neo-now-bushwick-film-festival-nyc/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

The deletion discussion seemed to be very heated (but some said it met the notability guidelines) so I wanted to respond on behalf of Rah Crawford's team, we wanted to note the things that have happened in his 14 year art career and community engagement.

AGK - If you have any advice on going forward, or where or who it would make sense to direct these comments too - I would appreciate it!

This talk page meets the talk page guidelines to the best of my knowledge, my apologies if I missed a step.

Michelle WO1977 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent WP:AE action

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I thought you were extremely fast in closing the request against Onceinawhile here, less than 2 hours after it was opened. As I stated here, I started this mess, which led to this rule...and I am not happy about the result, at all. The IP area is difficult, we all know, but it is not getting better by having rules most of us simply don't understand. It is not getting better being banned (or topic banned) under these Byzantine rules, Huldra (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are methods of writing a Wikipedia article that do not involve every sentence being furiously upended by a dozen users in quick succession. I suppose that restrictions on the frequency of reverts are less dangerous and cumbersome to users whose "go-to" is not reverting… AGK ■ 22:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is about as clear to me as the rules in the IP area. IE, clear ...as ink, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile

I don't understand how I can be blamed for something that happened after I edited? Above you explained your decision writing "every sentence being furiously upended by a dozen users in quick succession". On the AE you explained in a similar way: "Enclave law was in the throes of an edit war. Onceinawhile contributed to disruption of this article when they reverted." These descriptions are incorrect representations of the situation when I edited the article.

I last edited the article on 29 Oct. Then Icewhiz edited on 2 Nov, then I reverted. No-one else had edited. There was no edit war.

I am not and have never been an edit warrior. Whenever I see one I run a mile, because I know what discretionary sanctions are like.

Please could you kindly clarify what you think I personally did wrong?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Onceinawhile. The restriction can be read in full at WP:A/I/PIA § General 1RR restriction. It restricts all editors of pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict from "reverting a revert", which historically has been a serious problem in this topic area. Your breach was of this restriction; "discretionary sanctions" is actually a different system of restrictions. AGK ■ 22:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AGK. At the AE you wrote "I accept Onceinawhile's submission that, wrongly, they did not think ARBPIA § General 1RR Restriction is counted from the most recent revert". I read that to mean that we both accepted that that was an inadvertent error, regarding a rule that I had not been notified of. From your closing statement it didn't feel like this was what I was being punished for.
I took another cold look at the events. I understood it as simply WP:BRD. A big bold set of edits, followed by a single revert, followed by a discussion. Of course sometimes bold edits in BRD can be considered to also be reverts; that inherent subjectivity is exactly why the "one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period" needs to exist. In this case, the bold edit was a major undiscussed change to the scope of the article (it literally changed the entire topic of the article to make it about terminology not about a legal concept), and came after a period of many days of stability and article building, so by no means a classic revert. Either way, throughout my 8.5 years here I have seen and heard that BRD, with the 24 hour-per-editor rule, represents normal course. I behaved exactly as I have always seen and heard is acceptable.
I park my car in the same parking spot every day. If next week the local authorities subtly tweaked the wording of the parking regulations, and didn't make the change clear or notify me, I would go ahead and park there again. If I got a parking ticket, I would appeal it. But if I was instead banned from driving for three months?
Separately, to illustrate what kind of editor I am, please see the only two other posts on my talk page today. It started as a good Wikipedia day for me this morning. I hope that my long history of hard work, diligence and good citizenship here can count for something.
One final note. I don't feel great about taking your time asking to you to look at it all over again, as you are volunteering to spend your free time working to keep our project administration functioning and as individual editors we should be making your life easier not harder. If you agree to spend the time to take another look, and I can do anything to balance the effort, I will.
Onceinawhile (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound cold, but none of what you're saying makes a difference. Editing that article means you are required to pare back Bold – Revert – Discuss. This happens to almost no other Wikipedia articles. You breached that requirement and have been excluded from the topic for a time. Any other editor who breaches the requirement will be excluded too, in their turn. As a community, we tolerate firmer standards on these articles because topic areas like PIA are charged and unpleasant. Thank you for your comments, but I don't think letting you back into this article would be the right outcome. AGK ■ 14:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. You have made your decision. I am not clear which specific requirement you are talking about (your first post above referred to the entire revert restriction regime, which includes many sub-rules), as we have talked loosely about a few. You have stated that your decision was not related to the discretionary sanctions regime. Please could you clarify two questions: (1) is the ban only because I breached the “original author” 24-hour-from-revert rule? (2) if the answer to 1 is no, which specific other part of rule do you consider I breached?
I would appreciate if you could do me the courtesy of being precise about this, so we can all move on. I need to assess how I feel about this, but I can’t do that without a very clear understanding of your decision. I appreciate it must be irritating having editors who you have enforced sanctions against come and take up your time here. As I said above, if I can mitigate this I will. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While awaiting your response, I found a sentence under Community Sanctions at WP:GS which states: “Administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor has previously been made aware of the existence of these sanctions.”
In your closing statement you explicitly accepted that I was not aware. To say more clearly what I have been making a meal of above, I am 100% certain that I did not breach any rule except the single new one that I was not aware of.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is distressing to see one of the best editors in the IP area, who wrote this article almost single-handedly, being hit with a severe penalty. Now the tag-team who started deleting everything on the non-policy excuse that sources must contain the exact words that appear in the article title (rather than merely being about the same subject) can proceed to destroy it without opposition. None of this is to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Concerning the obligation of editors to know the rules, it is unarguable but you should know that you (AGK) got the rule wrong too. It does not say that the General 1RR restriction "is counted from the most recent revert", but rather from "the first revert made to their edit". Oncenawhile indeed violated the real rule in this case, but the fact that his confusion derived from the unwise assumption that the rules make good sense calls for leniency in my opinion. Zerotalk 02:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome to use my page to talk until you're blue in the face. I don't mind. But it would be more useful to read about this tag-team in an enforcement request. If you do not submit a request, I shall need to presume that much of your description is exaggerated. AGK ■ 14:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user was well aware of more stricter version of the prohibitions see their post "gain_consensus"_ARBPIA_requirement_working?(which was amended latter).But he didn't abide to the current version that less stricter .If we assume that he forgot about the sanctions then are probably some WP:CIR issue here and he shouldn't edit the topic area at all. --Shrike (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a long time ago, and because the discussion to unwind that sanction was posted just three days after my post by Huldra on the same page (at WP:IPCOLL, which I have on my watchlist), I also knew of (and was involved in, from memory) its quick demise.
There is a reason for my username - I only edit once in a while (or at least I try to). Which is why it’s not practical to spend my time searching byzantine ARCA pages every time to ensure I am aware of new rules. To use my parking analogy above, drivers are not expected to search the parking regulations rulebook every time they take the car for a spin. Changes to parking regulations are usually publicized in an obvious way. The fact that changes are not publicized clearly here is presumably why the awareness requirement exists.
Two other points for reflection. I personally built the table at Wikipedia:ARBPIAINTRO in order to make it easier for editors to follow these rules. Unfortunately it gets updated very rarely (you’ll see it still doesn’t include this original author rule). I now see - from AGK’s link above - that the issue of overly complex ARBPIA pages was acknowledged through the creation of Wikipedia:A/I/PIA a few months ago. I have now added this to my watchlist. I would also suggest that the table at ARBPIAINTRO is replaced by a link to this new page. And perhaps we could all agree that any changes to ARBPIA going forward are publicized and explained clearly at the three wikiproject noticeboards (Israel, Palestine, and IPCOLL).
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: I just realized that you are the 17th most active user of WP:AE, ever, including the admins who work there, and have the highest AE-to-overall edit ratio (1 in 30 of your entire edit history has been at AE). You might consider, going forward, using that great interest and dedication to help the community understand the evolving ARBPIA rules. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are three points to be made.

  1. The rule is extremely confusing, and nobody (not even admins) understands it. Several admins at AE have said so explicitly. Also see this entire AE request, where everybody, including Shrike, shows that they don't understand the rule. Not to toot my own horn, but I was the only one who had the correct interpretation. It is unclear to me that AGK even knows how confusing this rule is and how it has been treated at AE, since I don't recall them ever weighing in on a dispute on this rule.
  2. Onceinawhile stated explicitly that they would be happy to self-revert. It is very common for people to break 1RR by mistake. I have done so many times. Here is one of many examples.
  3. AGK decided (based on what criteria, it isn't clear), that a single infraction of this unclear rule deserves a three-month topic ban. How did AGK get to this conclusion? Do they hand out 3-month topic bans for isolated 3RR violations on the edit-warring noticeboard? Perhaps all the work Onceinawhile put in to get Balfour Declaration to FA clearly shows to AGK that the former isn't qualified to edit in this area. That was sarcasm. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcticocean&oldid=867325778"