User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

"Observe how fleeting and paltry is all mortal life; yesterday a drop of mucus, tomorrow a mummy or handful of ashes. And spend these fleeting moments on earth as Nature would have you spend them, and then go to your rest with a good grace, as an olive falls in its season, with a blessing for the earth that bore it and a thanksgiving to the tree that gave it life." Where this user currently is, the time is 20:20, Tuesday 24 December 2024. This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Wikipedia: 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".

Hi, after you remarked on an apparent interaction ban violation by Lecen at WP:ARCA, an enforcement request was made at WP:AE. Could you comment at WP:AE#Result concerning Lecen on whether this request should be processed by administrators or whether problematic conduct in arbitration fora should be left for arbitrators or clerks to address? Thanks,  Sandstein  17:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I have commented there. Thanks, AGK [•] 17:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm still trying to figure out this business of discretionary sanctions warnings. You confirmed to me that the warning is for misconduct. An administrator cited the 2013 DS review under "Draft v2", seemingly suggesting that the warning is no longer for misconduct. Does the draft apply presently?

This is enormously confusing and I am only trying to understand what is going on. If in the near future all such warnings will be grandfathered in as informational "alerts" issuable by non-admins (as noted in the last section of the draft), then there would seem to be no long-term damage to my having received a warning by mistake. vzaak (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a draft, it is not presently in effect. After adoption of the draft, I believe warnings given under the old (that is, our current) system will be treated as both alerts and warnings under the new system. AGK [•] 23:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast reply. So it looks like there are repercussions. If a person has ample evidence showing that he/she was improperly issued the discretionary sanctions warning, and the admin that issued it has refused to discuss the matter, then what should that person do? vzaak (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current system, they can do nothing. Under the new system, they will be able to appeal the warning as if it is a sanction; but if that appeal is successful, they will still be considered to have been "Alerted" in the sense used by the new draft. Is that clear? AGK [•] 23:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an expected time for when the new system will be in effect? Can a warning issued in the old system be appealed in the new system? vzaak (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot give a more exact estimate than that the system will probably be live by February or late January of 2014. Yes, warnings issued under the old system will be treated as sanctions under the new system, and will be appealable under it. Regards, AGK [•] 23:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the contentious nature of some of the earlier warnings, my view is that all historic warnings should be treated simply as alerts. This is a very good opportunity to wipe the slate clean and (to mix a metaphor) leave some baggage behind.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies Please double-check everything I have said here. AGK [•] 11:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My mileage varies slightly,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to ask at this point if you would like for me to add more evidence given the growing number of external and internal links being added to the page by the involved parties. Is whats being added good enough for arbcom purposes, or should I role up my sleeves and dig into the archives such as it were? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: I think the other parties' statements have given us enough to go on. Thanks, AGK [•] 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. I'd make one suggestion though: consider renaming the case when you accept it. I named it "Ottoman Empire / Turkish naming dispute", but its grown increasingly apparent that there is far more at work here then just the name of the nation. While I would stop short of renaming it "Everyone v RoslynSKP", I think a case name like "RoslynSKP consensus and civility issues" would more accurately reflect the issues our editors seem to be presenting. Otherwise, I'll leave this in your hands. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'll raise the case title for discussion on the list. AGK [•] 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013! If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{you've got mail|ts=12:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Just in case you don't check your email often, I have send you something quite some time ago. Blurred Lines 12:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Blurred Lines: Replied. Thanks, AGK [•] 21:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bishzilla impressed by down-to-earth remark by little arb, edit influential voter guide! [1] More than nice pair of legs in kilt! [2] bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Your zillaship honours me. AGK [•] 12:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the December blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.

The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.

Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The most sensible thing to do is obtain a consensus at, say, the administrators' noticeboard for mass-unblocking these IPs. This isn't a problem that would fall under ArbCom's remit. If you open a noticeboard proposal for this matter, I'll happily comment – but as a checkuser and administrator, not an arbitrator. Thanks, AGK [•] 12:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology since I had earlier said I would leave the rest of the case in your hands, however in filing my clarification request I feel that I have once again infringed on your good graces as the arbitrator overseeing this case. I offer no excuse for the infringement, and apologize for having to inconvenience you once more in this case by bringing you back to rule on the matter of the filing parties.

That having been said I thank you for your reply on the matter, and since this is my first arbcom case I will keep in mind that parties must be explicitly named in the case in order to be considered filing members. Should the need arise for me to do this again I will endeavor not to make this mistake twice. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very gracious, but there is no need: this sort of mistake is very easily fixed! Thank you, AGK [•] 12:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a time extension as there are only two hours left, to make use of it? --Rskp (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to discuss in the extra evidence? The extension was to allow your extra words to be accepted into evidence, not for you to submit more evidence and therefore run over the word count again. AGK [•] 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence. AGK [•] 23:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did get the original message, but when I went to the linked page, I didn't see my name. I'm not sure why. Had the discussion begun by the time that first message had been left on my page? When I didn't see my name there, I figured that the initial message was one informing me of the intention to begin a discussion there, and that I would be notified once it had been. Sorry that I missed it. I'll look over the material now. Thanks for contacting me. Nightscream (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: You can find your case request under WP:A/R/C#Nightscream. --Rschen7754 19:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already found it, as I indicated above. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]