User talk:AGK/Archive/26

The following user talk subpage an archive of archived discussions on User talk:AGK. Please do not modify it. New discussions should be raised through this link; to contact this user, see User:AGK/Contact. For an overview of old discussions, see User talk:AGK/Archive.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

[edit] RfA

Well I hardly think my opinion of the president determines how well I am an admin. You could have at least given it 24 hours before closing it. Ctjf83Talk 17:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with your opinion on that topic, but this was definitely not going to pass. I gave it a while—RfAs are closed early after only 3 votes to 0 against the request, so the RfA in question was pretty far-gone in terms of snowball closures. It's done and dusted now; you're best bet from here on in is to review the opposes, and see how you can improve—many candidates who fail RfAs draw up a list of "targets" to work on. Regards, AGK § 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I was gypped on the RfA. The only reason it failed was probably because people didn't like my anti-bush opinion, which is crap. What can be done now? Ctjf83Talk 05:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of User:Obuibo Mbstpo

Would you object if I restored it? He's developing something of a sock farm, and I'd prefer to get rid of the various redlinks associated with that category. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. I deleted it as it was a {{indef}} tagged page, and didn't have a sock puppet tag on it. If you need to restore it for sock puppetry tagging purposes, go ahead ;) Regards, AGK § 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Page:Accuform Signs

I had my page deleted that I was just starting -- it did have a little bit about us along with some other relavent safty sign information. We created a page because one of our competitors in on Wiki. Any advice? Our page was not much different than Brady Corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuform76 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for formatting the Bluemarine request. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, just 'gnoming ;) AGK § 18:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my RFA

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure ;) Good luck with your new tools. Regards, AGK § 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extension

Hi, AGK/Archive. As you have not opted out of updates to Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸'s secret page, here's an update. I have now extended it by two clues: feel free to have a go. I'm also interested in any comments or ideas you have for the next extension, so please help me expand it!
Thanks in advance,
Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 17:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undelete please

Hi AGK. Could you kindly undelete France-Japan relations (19th century), which has nothing to do with my Arbcom restrictions? Thank you. PHG (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Please be careful with this one, PHG—this is your second chance. Use it well ;) Regards, Anthøny 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early close of RfA NorthernThunder

I would have predicted that it would not have passed had it gone on, but what is the criteria for an early close to an RfA? I am not trying at all to be critical but I was under the impression that an early close to an RfA would only happen when, say, there are no support votes, and ten oppose votes and the candidate has 230 total edits or something. This early close genuinely surprised me so I just thought I would ask about it. (Or did the user request it?) κaτaʟaveno^T_C 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. As I said in my closing message, there was a 3:1 rate against him—no RfA recovers from that. Anyway, the RfA's been re-opened, and since re-closed (see here) as unsuccessful. Regards, Anthøny 10:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NorthernThunder's RfA

Just saw you closed the RfA, don't you think it's a little early? This isn't the usual guy with 10 edits and 3 RfA, the user has ~9000 edits, I think he's entitled to have a full RfA. He can still answer the questions, amend the statement and even pass. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snowolf. Check my reply in the above thread—it's concerning the same topic ;) Regards, Anthøny 10:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Hello, again.

Could you do me a favour and rollback User:Microchip08 and derollback User:Microchip80? Sorry for the late reply, but I've only just discovered Special:Listusers. My 80 account is for public computers, so it's not very security-friendly.

Thanks,

microchip80 I am Microchip08 in disguise! / Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries—Y Done. Kind regards, Anthøny 14:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do I ask for an arbitrator to recuse himself?

I am an involved party at the 9/11 conspiracy theories arbitration process. I wish to ask that Kirill Lokshin recuse himself as an arbitrator on this case because of his personal friendship with Aude, who is also a party to this case. There is a photo of them together on Kirill's user page. How do I go about making such a request? Many thanks. ireneshusband (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no "hard and fast" process for requesting that an Arbitrator recuse his- or herself, primarily because it's not very common: most Arbitrators recognise when they are required to recuse, in accordance with the recusal standards of the Arbitration Committee, as established over its period of operations. I would suggest that you raise the matter with Kirill on his talk page, User talk:Kirill Lokshin (note, his userpage suggests that he is currently travelling, so you should allow for a longer than ordinary period of response).

If you are still dissatisfied with the situation after discussion with Kirill has been exhausted (note, I'd encourage you to very much put yourself in Kirill's shoes at that time, and to listen to his side of the story—it always helps with situations such as this), then you may proceed to address the Committee as a whole, via the ArbCom mailing list, or at one of the Arbitration talk pages, WT:RFAR and WT:AC. You may also be interested in this thread, which was originally located at Newyorkbrad's talk page, and which concerned a similar situation as this. I hope this response helps. Best regards, Anthøny 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yo

You're handy at these sort of things... any ideas at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Barnstars_format? --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be Fixed :) Hope your barnstars recover ;P Regards, Anthøny 17:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block of PHG

Hello. I'm coming here because of the unblock request at User talk:PHG. I'm sorry to say that I do not fully understand why this user is blocked. You indicated that you blocked him for creating France-Japan relations (19th century), in violation of the remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. However, that remedies only prohibit his editing of articles relating to medieval or ancient history. This is not the case with France-Japan relations (19th century), because this article did not deal with the time before 1500, which is when the medieval period is generally assumed to have ended. Could you please explain the reasons for your block more clearly? Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, thanks for getting in touch. I've explained my block more clearly on User talk:PHG, to avoid duplication and to keep things centred. I'll see your responses there, but in the meanwhile, I hope this goes some way to clearing things up. All the best, AGK § 00:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've added my thoughts on the same page, suggesting that the block should be reduced in length. Best, Sandstein (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

AGK, hi, I was wondering if you could clarify something about lifting PHG's block? It's partially about PHG in particular, and partially a larger problem, as you and I both know from the WG wiki. From where I sit, it looks like you implemented a good block, and then received a torrent of abuse from the blockee. You told him (correctly) to improve his attitude, he then just continued with abuse. You cautioned him again, he continued with abuse. Then you lifted the block, saying effectively, "Okay, I'm giving you a second chance." This doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't you only give someone a second chance, if they actually promise that they're going to try to do better?

Also, I see that PHG is just making a beeline back for other areas where he was being disruptive, such as Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248).

So, we've blocked a disruptive editor, he has protested the block, he has refused to acknowledge the problems that led to the block, and when the block was lifted, he's gone right back to doing disruptive things. I find this frustrating, because it takes so much of my own time to write up reports on PHG, when I could be spending time working on more productive pursuits (such as the WG wiki). It's one thing to give another chance to an editor who indicates a genuine interest in reform. It's another to keep giving second chances to someone who does not indicate a desire to reform. This kind of situation seems to be being played out in many other places on Wikipedia as well, where we get so concerned about the precise "letter of the law" on someone's ArbCom ruling, that we end up condoning what is clearly disruptive behavior because it wasn't "precisely spelled out." In my opinion, when editors are routinely disruptive, we should just block them. Because they're not just disrupting an article or two, they're also antagonizing other editors, and thereby reducing their own productivity. Yes, we may lose a certain amount of good work from the disruptive editor by blocking them, but how much other good work are we losing from the good editors who are exasperated in having to deal with them? And I guess the bottom line on PHG: What would have been the harm in keeping him blocked?

Looking forward to hearing your own philosophy on this ... --Elonka 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, missed your message :) This definitely warrants some extended thoughts, which I'm too tired to give right now ;) I'll get a reply back to you within 24 hours, Elonka, if that's okay? Anthøny 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and Happy Easter! :) --Elonka 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And to you ;) Anthøny 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand. BTW, do you use IMs? --Elonka 23:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do—I'm on IRC and Skype. Check out User:AGK/Contact/Skype and User:AGK/Contact/IRC. Anthøny 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've got AIM/MSN/Yahoo/Gtalk. Do you have a way to send a message to one of those? I'm rarely in IRC. --Elonka 23:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, PHG is spinning things that you "cancelled" the block, rather than simply reducing it. He also added as much to the end of the closed thread at WP:AE.[1] I tried reverting him, but he just put it back, and it's not a page I want to be edit-warring on. I did want to let you know though. As I've already mentioned, it concerns me greatly that PHG is unable to acknowledge the good faith concerns about his own behavior. In his world, he's done everything right, everyone else is just lying to discredit him, all blocks upon him were inappropriate, the arbitrators were all mis-led, and the entire ArbCom case is completely invalid. When you lifted the block on him, it reinforced to him that he (PHG) was right, and that you were admitting that you'd done something wrong. And I am afraid that this kind of perception is just encouraging him to be further disruptive. He continues to violate his sanctions (re-introducing old arguments, and being uncivil). Right now I'm just collecting diffs, since it's not worth filing a separate AE report on every single one. If you'd like the diffs though, to re-examine whether or not the sanctions need to be enforced again, please let me know. --Elonka 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Interim response: I use gMail, which has a modular client; I suppose you could add me on that (address), although you'd have to nudge my talk page if you wanted me on :) Additionally, I've reverted PHG, and I intend to warn him if he attempts to restore. Now, to read the rest of your query, and start thinking about your primary query from a few days ago ;) Anthøny 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you should get on IRC, even if it does waste away an hour that could otherwise be spend fruitfully :) Anthøny 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:M1rth

He's at it again AGK. It's very difficult to work out these problems between ourselves, as you suggested, when he won't even participate in ongoing discussions. Please see User talk:M1rth#WP:Civility for an example of the latest problem. Also, take a look at Talk:Falafel#re: Falafel has been part of the diet of Arabs, as well as Mizrahi Jews for centuries. and note his edits here and here. This is just plain disruption. Tiamut^talk 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been out for some time and when I returned, I found Tiamut and Jd continuing to edit war against another user and continuing to vandalize removing Israeli terminology and references: see [2] as well as pushing "sources" that absolutely fail wp:rs and wp:v. I am saddened but unsurprised to see them playing the same old games. M1rth (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I will review M1rth's conduct at a later date. In the meanwhile, it has come to my attention that the both M1rht and Irn of you are edit warring with one another on articles—this behaviour is disruptive and unacceptable. I have blocked both of you M1rth and Irn, for 12 hours. Anthøny 12:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Note, corrections made post-comment. Anthøny 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with this issue Anthony, but I think the block of User:Irn was rather poorly thought out. I left a comment on his/her talk page about it and hope you will consider the issues I raised there. Your prompt response to the overall matter is nevertheless appreciated. And I'm sorry to have to distract you from what we are all here to do - which is to collaboratively edit a high-quality encyclopedia. Tiamut^talk 13:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I've responded at Irn's talk page—I hope that clears things up. Anthøny 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I checked the page history again and you are right that Irn was indeed edit-warring (with 3 reverts in 24 hours). It's not that I think he/she was right to do so, nor is it that I deny that edit-warring was occurring (even when I thought it was only 2 reverts). My only concern is that as a new user who may be unfamiliar with our policies, such as WP:3RR, a 12-hour block seems a little harsh.

I do understand that you see a need to treat both parties equally. I just think that Irn, as someone who may not be familiar with those policies, who was not formally warned of the policies, and who made more than one attempt to discuss which was not reciprocated, may have gotten the short end of the stick here. No major damage in such a decision though. It's a short block. I personally had to receive four before I understood that more than one revert could be considered edit-warring. ;) Thanks again for your attention to the matter and sorry for any trouble I may have inadvertently caused you. Tiamut^talk 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No trouble at all ;) Anthøny 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

He's accusing me of sockpuppetry again in the edit summary, in this summary, and in this summary too. He deleted my request that he stop. What do I do? What page do I go to? I've never filed a user conduct RfC before. Do I need to here? Sorry for troubling you over this one. If you don't mind pointing me in the right direction, I'd be glad to bother you no further. Jd2718 (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I intend to file a review of M1rth's conduct tomorrow. In the meanwhile, my best advice would simply be, to ignore him. No matter how he reverts you, or interacts with you, just let it slide... His disruption will be brought to a halt soon. Regards, Anthøny 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I will heed your advice. Jd2718 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly

Thanks for your interest in coming and being a part of a conversation! - I'm going to host a chit chat at 00.00 UTC March 26th (which is probably tomorrow for most - it's 8.00pm east coast US) - it'd be great if you can come along, and I've created a new 'confirmed' participants section at the wiki page, which it would be great if you could pop over and sign, if you are indeed available! - I hope so, and I look forward to chatting tomorrow! best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will know by tomorrow evening, whether I am available or not (or, more accurately, whether I have the hardware available—i.e., the mic). I'm also concerned about the time: I'm generally in no fit state to talk if I'm editing at 00.00 UTC... I might put this one off, and plump for another, earlier edition. Will every episode be recorded at this time, do you know? Regards, Anthøny 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That time seems to work reasonably well for most participants. Sorry if it's too late for you, but we have to work across very different time zones (Europe, continental US, and Australia) and that is a pretty good fit. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand completely—I would never expect a shift, simply because one editor couldn't make it :) I do hope, however, that the podcast will be dipping its toes in other time slots as well, including those that are earlier? Anthøny 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Hey Tony, the new addition to your userpage is hilarious :) Just wondering if it's OK for us to use that sort of thing on our userpages? It's not freely licensed AFAIK, because I've seen it used in those chain e-mails a lot, so it's not original and it's unlikely to be PD. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers :) (Riana, socking it) 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead! It's from a website, I'll dig up the link when I have more time ;) Anthøny 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S., I can't find any copyright about it... Can you? Anthøny 17:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything is assumed to be copyrighted unless there's reason to believe the contrary (see here). Daniel (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm aware of the copyright policies. Anthøny 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it per your standing offer above, until this is all sorted out. Daniel (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, will you please just stay out of it? I don't think it's prudent that you're involved here. I'm really sure what is going on here, but it seems rather co-ordinated. I will find the copyright status, and act accordingly—myself. I appreciate your help, but I just don't think it's well placed, and the both of us know that very well. Anthøny 07:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been removed by Ral. I'm not going to further this discussion, particularly with Ral, as I'm going to say something that I will regret. To cut a long story short, I'm disappointed by this rather obviously co-ordinated move: this very much as the mark of Daniel getting some help on this. Daniel: we don't get along, but I would have thought that you would know better than to launch this sort of thing. Well, there's not much I can do about it—I am not willing to engage in an edit war, even in my own user space, over something so petty (not that, of course, copyright is petty—perhaps it's just that I don't have as great an awareness of those issues as others, hence why I don't engage in copyright-related activities very often, and similarly have not offered myself to OTRS for copyright queues). This discussion is now ended. Anthøny 17:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MarineMichaelBrown.jpg

I was about to put this up for speedy, when I noticed you'd looked at it. Could I ask for a fuller explanation of your rationale for keeping? From everything I can find, its subject is still alive, and the photo is just a head shot, not anything especially iconic or that couldn't be taken again in the future. It seems the very definition of "replaceable photo of a living person" to me. "Replaceable" just means that it theoretically could be replaced by a free image, not that it necessarily has been. In fact, with him having been in the Marine Corps, free photos (taken by Marines on duty, by definition any such are public domain in the US) are if anything more likely to be out there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrm... You're from the US, so I'm sure you are much more acquainted with the average availability of photographs of on-duty military personnel. If you think (using your native knowledge ;) that the image could probably be replaced, and thus that a fair use is invalid, then I'd invite you to act accordingly: you probably know more about that sort of thing, anyway. I certainly did move to keep the image, on the basic grounds that it is probably difficult to replace... From your comment, above, I will assume that that is not the case? Anthøny 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be difficult, but that's not a criterion. One of the criteria for a nonfree image's use is irreplaceable, meaning it's impossible to replace, not just difficult. That's true, of course, for biographies where the subject is dead and no free photos are known to exist, but not where a person is still alive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war at Falafel

I sent you a message while I was blocked. Did you receive it? You haven't responded and your post on my talk page seemed to imply that you had not. -- Irn (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. If you sent me a PM over IRC and I closed the client without seeing it, I wouldn't have gotten it. Would you like to resend? Anthøny 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was an email through your user page, I believe. Anyway, here's what I wrote (yesterday).

I responded to your block and was hoping you could respond to what I wrote. I'm not that interested in getting the block removed because I don't foresee myself making any edits tonight, anyway, but I just feel like it was a bit unfair, and I'm unclear as to how I broke the 3RR rule. Also, as an aside, I felt like M1rth was editing in bad faith, and upon coming home today, I was planning on writing a message on M1rth's talk page addressing that. That's obviously immaterial at this moment, but I was just curious about addressing bad faith editting in general. Thanks.

--Irn (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, an email—I was interpreting it as an IRC private message :) I've a backlog in my email at the moment—it's probably in there somewhere. If it has "blocked" in it, I generally send it to the top of the queue; I must've missed it. I shall review and respond soon, Irn. All the best, Anthøny 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Anthony, I reverted your userpage back to Daniel's version, removing the text that's a copyright violation. You're an administrator; you should know better. Ral315 (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not even going to offer a response to this. Anthøny 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, my response at #Your userpage pretty much covers my thoughts. I acknowledge the copyright issues, and that the content doesn't belong there until a response to my enquiries at that site, with regards to copyright, are answered. However, I am disappointed that two editors, with whom I do not get along, and who do not get along with me, are using this as an opportunity to irk me. Sorry, but I'm not going to stoop to this level. Regards, Anthøny 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M1rth

I've totally had it with this user AGK. His latest contributions include three reverts, all of which use the edit summary (UNDO! Yet another Tiamut/Jd2718/Jamiechef2 sockpuppet.) If you do not want to be the one who deals with this, I fully understand, but can you direct me to where I should bring these latest serious violations of WP:AGF? I can't abide by someone calling other established editors puppetmasters in his edit summaries, nor do I feel that User:M1rth is going to somehow magically reform. He's been given ample opportunity to prove that he intends to be a productive user here. Instead, he just keeps making provocative, undiscussed edits, using the excuse of reverting sockpuppets. How long is this going to be allowed to go on? Tiamut^talk 09:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now the advice you gave to Jd2718 above. It's sage advice, but I unfortunately missed it before posting a message to M1rth on his talk page. Forgive please. And thanks for taking this to a wider audience for more feedback. Tiamut^talk 09:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)