Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:05, 25 March 2013

"First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd. Then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant. Finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim they themselves discovered it." Where this user currently is, the time is 17:40, Thursday 09 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
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

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)

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)

What? Who indef blocked Kumioko? Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

AGK, these should not be checkuser blocks! Rich Farmbrough, 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

User talk:138.162.0.46 has been used exclusively by Kumioko since 4 February 2013 (perhaps earlier) until today. If you agree with this conclusion, a block may be warranted here as well. Also used repeatedly by Kumioko recently are User talk:138.162.0.44, User talk:138.162.0.45, User talk:138.162.0.41 ,..., so perhaps some rangeblock is needed instead. Fram (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes by all means block the entire 138.162 range. Of course this means that the US Navy and Marine Corps wont be able to edit but no one really cares about that these days so its of little consequence. Maybe instead of blocking the criticizer you should instead investigate how Fram is allowed to abusively harass other editors he doesn't like, he refuses to disengage from discussions when asked on multiple occassions by multiple individuals, he continues to harass, bully and stock users and has been increasingly negative in his interactions on Wiki. Yet he's still allowed to edit, to be an admin and to be a contributor. If you allow this to continue you deserve this type of editor and it will continue to keep good editors away and will continue to degrade the already toxic culture of the pedia. Fram is jsut another Racepacket, another of any number of other users who are no longer allowed to edit because the community finally realized what they were all about. The reasons for participation vary but in the end none were here to build an encyclopedia. Don't take my word for it, do some do diligence and look into the matter yourself. Look at his comments, his contributions and his actions. Not at my comments and see for yourself. 138.162.0.45 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am loathe to set down such a damaging rangeblock, and reverting Kumioko's comments or blocking the individual addresses for a short period seems like a more reasonable approach. Moreover, and as a general matter, I do not think it is wholly appropriate for sockpuppetry enforcement to be undertaken by a single person (that leads to tunnel vision); I am especially keen that, as an arbitrator, I do not become the sole enforcer of policy upon one individual. In future, please direct concerns that Kumioko is continuing to edit while logged out to SPI. (Rich, those blocks were made as a result of my checks, so they were properly annotated as a CU block. Am I missing something?) Thanks, AGK 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll just RI (not BRI as I'm somehow involved by being constantly attacked by Kumioko), and file a SPI if it gets too bad anyway. Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Somehow? Fram I may not be a fan but you and I both know you are an intelligent guy so the I don't understand why he's doing this charade is pretty weak. But in case I am wrong about your intelligence I'll lay it out again. Your a bully, you stalk other editors you don't like and don't agree with and provoke them into doing something that violates policy. You continuously houdn them looking for any reason to justify a block, a ban or an Arbcom discussion. You have on repeated occassions been asked by me, by Ohconfucious and a number of others to drop the sticks, to walk away, to take a break and several other terms. You vehemently refuse insisting you are doing nothing wrong. You think I am a jerk cause I call you out! Ok fine, I can live with that. But you are as well and the sooner you realize that and either walk away from this place or change your ways the better. There was a time I would never tell that to a user and I would have patiently pursuaded them back to the light side. Those days are gone and after dealing with you repeatedly over the years in multiple venues and situations I do not think for a second that you would listen to the nice way. Because you do whatever you want without consideration of others. So now I am telling you the not so nice way. 138.162.0.42 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are missing something. There was no need for Checkuser to establish this as Kumioko. Using checkuser when it is not needed (apart form being against the policy of minimal usage) with the only net result being you can make a non-reversible block is an abuse. Any admin could have imposed that block if they were vindictive enough. Therefore any admin should be able to remove it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. I'm not going to take time to explain why. AGK 21:43, 24 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)

Your rhetoric is unnecessary. There was no trial in camera, and it is unutterably rude to compare us to the Gestapo (not to mention literally laughable—I nearly spat my tea out while reading your message). We were informed that Malleus and George were editing in support of one another, that at times the accounts appeared interchangeable, and that both accounts edited from the same location. Even if we were not required to keep messages sent to our mailing list in confidence, I don't see why the identity of the person who first raised these concerns is relevant. In any event, we verified that the accusation of "meat puppetry" was correct, and that the two accounts were editing from the same place. Afterwards—with our announcement—we disclosed this information to the community. That's all there is to this situation. There has been no punishment, no scheming, and nothing done except the enforcement of community policy. You can see for yourself why it is problematic that these two editors edit from the same location, if you care to examine their contributions for themselves; I would save you the legwork, but I'm afraid I don't have the list of offending edits handy. I supported the motion proposing we release yesterday's announcement, if that is what you mean by "how each arbitrator voted". My colleagues are capable of speaking for themselves. Regards, AGK 14:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Behave like the Gestapo - you must be the Gestapo. Secret informers, the informant had already had a dispute with Malleus, are to be discouraged, not leapt on with undisguised glee. You are a disgrace to the project and no better than the 16th century Inquisition.  Giano  14:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The supporters and opposers of the motion are listed right here, underneath the very text of the motion. Or did you not even bother to read the motion and announcement, so priceless an opportunity for arbitrator-hunting was this? AGK 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Silly man; that was just for show - surely you know that?  Giano  20:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I sympathise with Giano, having had you attempt to trick me into "confessions" and having other arbs say I have the "wrong mindset" (and doubtless need a dose of "re-education"). Rich Farmbrough, 04:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

That isn't an honest or accurate statement, but I cannot prove so because you are referring to a private e-mail. In any case, I would point you to the plethora of community discussions that maintained your "mindset" (though the phrase "attitude to community concerns" is more accurate) was not compatible with a collaborative project. Gestapo states tend not to have their enforcers agree entirely with the public, do they? AGK 22:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you immediately recognise what I mean shows that you realise it was a trick. Fortunately, as I didn't suspect duplicity, I was left mystified as to why you were asking for information you had, and explained the situation very carefully, rather than falling into your trap for the unwary. This sort of tactic is, in my mind, morally bankrupt, and not effective as in investigative tool.

As for your suggestion that it is the community that believes I have problem collaborating, you will not find any discussion that reaches such a conclusion, I will charitably put that down to your mis-remembering. Virtually all the work I have done has been been collaborative - hence the editors who came to the Arbitration Committee saying "but Rich is fixing X for project Y, who will do it if you stop him?" The correct answer was, of course, no one.

Further I did not say you were a Gestapo enforcer, that is something you thought of all by yourself. I merely said I sympathise with the position that Misplaced Pages should not be a Gestapo state - maybe you do not. There is widespread community disquiet about the extent of secret discussions, especially as we have seen some appalling things leaked from previous committees' secret discussions. You may assure us that the current committee does not do these things, Coren's statement says otherwise.

Moreover you say "There was no trial in camera" yet we are told that over 1000 emails were exchanged. Quite apart from the stupidity of the non-productive and divisive result of those emails, this is effectively an in camera trial by any name.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Responding in the same order:

1. Complete non sequitur. I recognised the conversation because it is the only substantive off-site communication we have had. And there was no "trap"; you were merely afforded the opportunity to explain why you were circumventing your automation restriction with silly "copy-pasting" of automated output (and that is a generous assumption of what was going on; some thought you were actually masking AWB's true user agent, and simply slipped up a few times). Note: I'm not going to re-open a discussion of that incident. I simply think your points require a proper response from me.
2. What on earth are you talking about? There are a great many discussions in which a majority of uninvolved participants held your edits to be problematic. Here is an example: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2011, "This is just the latest in a string of issues caused by Rich, whom, I hasten to add, I respect deeply, but who is editing so negligently that it's disruptive." If people are consistently agreeing that your edits are disruptive, in the knowledge that other people have already agreed that your edits are disruptive, then they are also agreeing that your attitude to the community's concerns is problematic. As the apposite finding of fact says, you repeatedly responded to concerns regarding your use of automation tools in a manner inconsistent with the community expectations for users of automation tools. I do not really think it is possible to argue to the contrary, though experience tells me you will try.
3. Yes, you did, and just as it was offensive for Giano to say "you must be the Gestapo", it was offensive for you to say it.
4. Okay, so what are these public votes that saw us change our decision as a result of engagement with you and the community? Strange way for an in camera trial to be conducted. Could it be that those e-mails were simply us figuring out what on earth you were doing with the tooled-up variant of AWB that you were not supposed to be using?

AGK 22:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For the drama reducing unblock. I have great respect for an editor who willing to reverse course for the benefit of the project. NE Ent 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Echo the thanks. For the record, I support your block, it was the right thing to do at that time, but I also think that the unblock was the right thing to do now. As you might have noticed, we've got way too much drama going on :) --regentspark (comment) 01:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I see things like Misplaced Pages:TipibitsmMisplaced Pages:Tiptibism have developed in the past day, presumably as an attack on my actions in this case. After reading that essay, I think I have finally reached the point where I wonder "why the hell am I contributing here?". AGK 09:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

With the unblock and this message you've shown what leadership is all about. I'm not worried! --regentspark (comment) 13:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your redlink, and I can't answer why you make the choices you do. But I can tell you that I contribute here because Misplaced Pages is highly likely the single most comprehensive assortment of knowledge in human history, and that's a good thing. It's far from perfect and certainly constructed by humans that are, like all people, far from perfect. On days when seeing the same ol' human frailties on display start to wear on me, I go look at Special:Statistics -- of the 100,000 very few end up in conflict zones. What you and your committee colleagues do is important, but it's a very small and arguably the worst slice of the community. NE Ent 21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed AGK, I think I must salute you on making the right decision. What the best course of action was has torn me for a few days and I kept flip flopping as to whether MZMcBride should remain blocked. I concluded that now was the right time to unblock and I applaud your diligence in seeing that also. Onwards and upwards as they say. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Tiptibism was written in March 2010, you were elected December 2011. NE Ent 02:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm very impressed with you today. I'm a firm believer that pride needs to be set aside in the role of an administrator and you've demonstrated that you have the capability to do that. I hope this experience becomes a learning point for other administrators.--v/r - TP 12:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

bugzilla:27242

Hey. I just commented on bugzilla:27242. I assume you got cc'd, but commenting on that mostly forgotten bug report reminded me of all the various places in which we've interacted (on Bugzilla, in several threads on my talk page, on noticeboards, on forums, on IRC, and probably on mailing lists too...). And I just wanted to let you know that I refuse to let your recent indefinite block tarnish what I've always found to be a really good relationship over the years. I find you to be a smart colleague who often has smart things to say and I appreciate you and your work most of the time. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks – I appreciate you letting me know that. We're clearly both capable of not letting one incident tarnish a working relationship, or at least I've always assumed so :-). I noticed there had been some activity on the bug, so I'll take a look again. It strikes me that, since you requested this feature in 2011, "recently used IP address" windows have appeared in almost every major website (notably Gmail). The proliferation of this feature seems to have increased at the same rate as these sites have (tardily) rolled out https support and other reasonable security features. We could argue in favour of bringing Misplaced Pages into line with other popular websites, and indeed it seems like there's already movement in that direction.

However, Gmail and other sites are very different beasts from Misplaced Pages accounts. People have a right to know from which IP addresses their Gmail inbox is being accessed, because unauthorised access to a private inbox poses a critical security risk; banking statements and other sensitive documents are often sent to those inboxes. On the other hand, on a wiki an account is, for the most part, simply an online handle. Our website also has a unique vulnerability to people running multiple accounts; on Gmail, that is harmless and very common, but on Misplaced Pages multiple accounts are actively problematic. I would argue that a "recent logins" table would allow would-be sockers to essentially self-checkuser themselves across multiple accounts—and therefore positively verify their capacity to evade detection by checkuser. For technically proficient people, there are various methods of avoiding detection, and behavioural evidence plays a significant role in detecting Misplaced Pages account abuse. However, the majority of sockers are not technically proficient, nor is behavioural evidence often definitive on its own. Adding this feature to Misplaced Pages would be problematic on a number of levels, even if it is an innocent and welcome feature on other websites. I still come down against the idea. You might want to ask some other checkusers for their views; as a current member of AUSC, I'm no longer allowed to use my checkuser tools (despite the fact I was given them before I even joined ArbCom), so I'm a little rusty. AGK 12:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As I outlined at mw:Requests for comment/Retained account data self-discovery, this will be behind a configuration variable. I think it's quite possible that certain "European" wikis (for example, the Italian and German wikis) might want to expose this data to their users, while others (such as the English Misplaced Pages) may not. But of course, people still might object for all Wikimedia wikis. It's difficult to argue against enhanced account security, though. :-)

Re: multiple accounts: nearly any long-time user has more than one account. They're crazy common if you start to consider every bot account, every public computer account, every mistakenly created duplicate account (I admit to making user:mzmcbride on accident one day), etc. We have some basic trust and faith that most people will behave themselves and that most people aren't willing to take the time necessary to dupe everyone, especially as there's little incentive to (lack of a financial gain in particular...). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative account

Hello Anthony, I'm going to make an alternative account and I noticed it's advised to tell a checkuser first so I thought I'd tell you beforehand so I don't get in trouble for socking. Thanks --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably need to send somebody a note of the actual name of your alternative account in order for a disclosure to be made. I'd rather not check your account in order to ascertain this information, so please send your note to ArbCom (who keep records of non-public alternative accounts, on behalf of the community) at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Thanks, AGK 22:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request: Argentine history

Hi, I don't know if I should talk to you here, but I will be brief. Could you tell me why you recused the request? (I won't waste your time trying to convince you otherwise, I only want to know why). --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have prior involvement in the dispute, because I accepted the request for mediation cited in the request. (As well as being an arbitrator, I was acting chairman of the Mediation Committee at the time the mediation request was submitted.) I have no substantive conflict of interest, but would still prefer to sit out of these proceedings. AGK 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Which means that you are not voting against the acceptance of the request, but merely chosing not to take part of it? --Lecen (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Recusal in a case request is simply a way for an arbitrator to excuse him or herself from casting a vote. AGK 23:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you very much, AGK. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Osgood

I noticed you recently removed a right from this user. There are two socks that are not yet blocked.

• User:Ian Harbord
• User:Dave malevolus

Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

What is your evidence that the two red-linked accounts are socks of Barbara Osgood, and why do the socks need to be blocked if they have not edited in five years? AGK 18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does Osgood's rights need adjusting if she is indef blocked? Why should we leave potential sleeper socks active? As to the socks, one is established by Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Barbara Osgood and the other uploaded File:Harbord.JPG both worked on material realting to a hoax article of Osgood's. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

Rich, is there some context to your messages that I have overlooked? You seem to have asked this question rather suddenly, so I'm a little lost. Are you simply perusing my recent actions? If you are not, then what is your interest in the Osgood user account, or in my revocation of that account's rights? In any case, I think it obvious that the rights needed to be adjusted because the original rationale for giving the rights (can be trusted with Reviewer) no longer applies. AGK 21:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I had recently discovered these accounts, and noticed you had been active on the Osgood account. I think it is obvious that these accounts can no longer be trusted with the autoconfirmed status. (Possibly you are searching for an ulterior motive, it sounds like it. You are wasting your time, as ever. I operate in a straightforward manner, even if I am somewhat more robust with those who should be held to a high ethical standard in virtue of their positions.) Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

Not searching for an ulterior motive – simply wondering whether I had missed something, or had answered your question. AGK 09:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your DS proposal

Thanks for your draft motion for DS process. Question, is this based on an already-existing text? What does the various formatting mean, e.g.,green or square-bracketed text? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It is based on the existing standard discretionary sanctions remedy, and is a draft that would eventually replace the existing standard wording. The green and bracketed text are incompatible alternative versions of the same wording; each alternative set of words would do different things, depending on which set is adopted in the final version. Which set to adopt will ultimately be decided through a majority vote of the committee. Although it might not be obvious, the alternatives represent different ways of doing things, and it may not be easy in every case to choose between them—so comments at this early stage are welcome.

The most important questions to ask when reading the draft are, "Would this be a suitable set of standard discretionary sanctions?" and "Is this an improvement over the current standard sanctions?"AGK 21:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought but did not want to assume. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You said "Salvio is presently inactive" - I hope it is not health. He was/is a good admin. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

PD

Why? Fram (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by this question, the blanking was clearly done by an arbitrator as part of an arbitration request, with a statement that the page should not be unprotected without discussion with Arbcom. Yet you edited through that protection, without discussing the matter with the committee to return a template. So I ask you Fram, why would you do that?

Personally, I find that sort of template distateful in any case - I don't see why user pages should be blanked and marked forevermore. Those who need to know can easily find out the user's status by looking in the block log, whilst forcing it onto a page will mark that username across the internet. The only possible reason I can see for that is punishment, to make the user suffer. That's unhelpful and against the way we work on wikipedia. Worm(talk) 14:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I discussed this with the user that actually made the original blankings, protections and deletions, before taking this action. As for the specific issue at hand: if not for this user, then why for any user? Note that this user has socked very very recently, so it(s not as if the tag needs to stay there forever, even when the editor isn't around any more. The original removal of the tag (and emptying of the sock cats and so on) was done because the editor promised not to sock any more. He didn't keep his end of the bargain, but apparently that doesn't matter any more. The removal of the sock templates and cats made it a lot harder to find patterns in socks, IPs used, articles edited, and so on. Any reason that all this is harder, just to accommodate the user name of a person (not his real name, the user name)? Anyway, I'll probably raise this at WP:AN, since this whole episode is rather disturbing. If I do, I'll obviously drop a note here. Fram (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)