Misplaced Pages

User talk:Arcticocean

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 17 February 2010 (→Mentorship: ping). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:54, 17 February 2010 by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) (→Mentorship: ping)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User:AGK/Notice

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

Hello AGK, my apologies but please could I request your help for a moment, there is a certain editor User:Dbachmann being very uncivil toward me and harrassing me. I'm very concerned with his behaviour toward me, as you can see on my talk page and his, and the article History of Iraq. I know you are a fair and decent admin and appeal to you in confidence. Izzedine 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You two must disengage. Stay away from him. AGK 14:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I've banned Izzedine, so disengagement is hardly relevant at this stage. Moreschi (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That is probably for the best. AGK 15:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Curious

- I thought someone should ask what your opinion is on this matter, since, after all, you are the one being discussed :) — James Kalmar 07:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My primary concern is that we would in essence be electing ten arbitrators from the candidates to the 2009 elections. The community were told that only nine would be appointed, and the votes that were cast reflect that thinking. So a last-minute addition to the committee could be said to be improper. An interesting precedent on this note is the audit subcommittee (AUSC) elections that took place a few months ago. The committee moved to appoint four candidates, where the difference between the bottom two was a very tiny number of votes. The community made it quite clear that such a late adjustment to the parameters of the election was unacceptable, and that the appointment should not be made. But then again, that appointment was to be made on the basis that the support rates for the two candidates was so small as to be negligible. Those who are suggesting that I be appointed are doing so because a vacancy has arisen, which is a quite separate matter. (In fact, many who opposed the AUSC last-minute appointment said that they would support it only if it was to cover a vacancy.) So maybe it would be proper to appoint me, and maybe it wouldn't. I really can't decide, and moreover, I shouldn't: I'm kinda biased.

As for whether I'd like to be appointed? Sure, I'd be happy to sit on the committee until December. AGK 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SPIconfirmedsock

Template:SPIconfirmedsock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have commented at the TfD discussion. AGK 13:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War

Hi. I'd like to ask that you consider removing the article protection which you put in place for the Gaza War article. It was certainly needed at the time and I should probably thank you for doing that. So it has been protected for almost three months now. Things have quieted down and there is a backlog of information from recent developments that editors would like to get to. As I understand it, the initial protection was required because of an edit war which resulted in serveral user blocks which have since been expired. Time heals all wounds and I think it has in this case. We may have a scar or two but I think that the editors who have been on the talk page are ready to move forward developing the article. Thanks for your help. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed my protection, without prejudice to a full or partial re-protection in the event of a resumption of disruptive editing. Those who proceed to force their changes into this article, instead of pursuing a consensus through discussion and DR, are reminded that their conduct is disruptive and that they will probably find themselves blocked. AGK 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is still protected. nableezy - 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I agree with you that editors need to take some personal responsibility and hopefully we can deal with disruptions that way. I think Nableezy is right also. Is there something else we need to do for unprotection? --JGGardiner (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No; after writing out my reply to your request, I had forgotten to actually unprotect the page. Sorry about that. It is definitely now unprotected. AGK 12:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It should probably remain move protected though. nableezy - 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Great. I had thought it was an oversight but the Canadian in me was too polite to say so outright. Unlike my friend Nableezy with his Chicagoan directness. Thanks again for your help. Hopefully no more of it will be needed. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think semi protection is warranted to prevent editing from rouge IP users. The first two edits came from such users once protection was lifted. I think this form of limited protection will find broad support from all involved editors--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I won't support it. The problems are caused by established editors who won't follow policy rather than IPs. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Concur with SeanHoyland. Would be better if Admins utilized the Wiki general sanctions assigned to this topic area to identify and warn the users whose article edits invariably advance only one POV. There is not even a veneer of neutrality in many cases. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you willing to volunteer to become an administrator and spend hours policing an article that many would categorise as a "lost cause"? If so, then fine, Roma, we'll all stop using page protection. But the bottom line is that sometimes a blanket stop to editing is the most efficient method of preventing disruption to an encyclopedia entry. AGK 12:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I literally LOLed. Not sure if it was your intent or not but go enjoy your wikibreak. I'm sure we can all agree to play nice and see what happens if not. RomaC and I actually agree it looks like so we can move it to working on the article. Cptnono (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


I'm sorry about all the ruckus. I just wanted to leave a note here as a courtesy, thinking AGK was on break and then I'd ask at RFP a day or two later. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello & Chart Question

Hello! I recently decided to create a chart of AUSC membeship, similar to the Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent (I did this as a service to the community as well as a way to improve my abilities with the chart-creating syntax). However, I am noticing that the names on my chart are not not properly centered within the bars (compare the two charts and you will see what I mean). I saw you had made some edits to the Committee Chart, so I thought you might have some ideas. If not, I apologize for bothering you. Have a great day! — James F Kalmar 07:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I figured it out . Sorry to have bothered you. But, whew, that is a rather complex system. Anyway, best wishes! — James F Kalmar 07:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Heavens, that is an annoyingly complex template to work with. I'm not surprised you had trouble! Regards, AGK 12:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Important

I've replied to you at my talk page. Please email me from the address I know about to confirm that you are still in control of this account. You're acting highly odd. Jehochman 13:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK, please see my comment at WP:AE. I too object to your block of Verbal. And if what I see above and on Jehochman's talkpage is an indication that you threatened Jehochman with a block too, I would notify you in advance that I'd strongly object to that too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Verbal: appeal

See Misplaced Pages:AE#Appeal by Verbal. --TS 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And also Misplaced Pages:AE#Appeal by THF, which I've copied to AE for him.  Sandstein  20:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
If possible, could you address the comments about your blocks on WP:AE, or at least confirm your awareness that they are under discussion and potentially up for reversal? I don't want to overturn them without further discussion, but at the same time, if you're not willing to discuss them, then I or another admin may proceed in overturning them. MastCell  23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I am aware that there was opposition to my block, although I was not aware until I checked WP:AE a few moments ago that a formal appeal had been filed. I was going to ask that I be given a while to post my thoughts on the situation, but I see that Future Perfect has overturned my actions. This I oppose. More to come, when I've thought things over and have written a more extensive narration of my thinking. Thank you, by the by, for having the courtesy to notify me that an appeal had been submitted. (So far, nobody else has.) AGK 00:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahem, you were informed by three editors. You have not been responsive so far for actions that have affected four editors, with two blocks. Perhaps what you have referred to as "a more extensive narrative of thinking" might provide some form of explanation. Your actions and unresponsiveness have been criticized by several administrators. Perhaps at some stage there will be some acknowledgement of a possible error in judgement. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I have commented on the requests for unblock that followed my closing of the complaint, so I don't see how you can say that I've been unresponsive. I contend that the closure was proper: the parties did edit war; and the only counter-argument to that (that they didn't edit war recently, and that a block is thus punitive) doesn't apply to this case unless it applies to all—as AE sanctions are often applied with some delay. AGK 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Relevant feedback:

  1. If this situation were evaluated 24+ hours after it ended at WP:AN3, it would have been marked stale, no blocks.
  2. There was no 1RR restriction in effect. The problem was not reverting. The problem was circular, repetitive argumentation by some of the parties. Other parties were resisting the disruption. Administrators are expected to be clueful, to distinguish between those causing disruption, and those trying to stop disruption. Yes, I understand the maxim Never argue with a fool because observers won't be able to tell the difference. It's easy to dispense that advice from afar, but when you're the one who's invested a lot of time in an article, it's easier to lose perspective. AGK, your ArbCom candidacy would probably have succeeded but for your relatively light mainspace contributions. This situation highlights why it might be good to spend more time in the trenches experiencing the frustrations of "ordinary" editors.
  3. Counting reverts oversimplifies the problem. It is better to dig all the way into an issue and understand who is improving the encyclopedia, and who's hurting it. Sometimes both sides are wrong, but sometimes one side is wrong and the other is right. An asymmetrical response may be appropriate when one side represents consensus, and the other side is stonewalling.
  4. You should avoid blocking good faith contributors without first telling them specifically what they are doing wrong and giving them a chance to stop. Blocks (or other sanctions) are only to be used as a last resort. In the past you've issued a lot of warnings at WP:AE. I've disagreed with you at times and chided you for being slow to take action, but nevertheless I respected your opinions. In this case, your actions were uncharacteristically outside the bounds of administrator discretion. (So uncharacteristic that I questioned whether your account was compromised, because it's unlike you to act so impetuously; that's much more my style.)
  5. Take note that neither I nor anybody else turned this into a major drama. There was no post WP:AN#Admin Abuse by AGK. Simple disagreements should not be allowed to turn into grudges.

I hope we can work together productively in the future. Best regards, Jehochman 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't want to drag this out further, but there are factual inaccuracies and misleading statements in AGKs reply. Firtly, AGK did not respond to my unblock request (hence unresponsive). Secondly, there was editwarring but you blocked an editor who had only made two reverts over 3 days, justified by discussion and consensus (which you admit to not looking at in your closing statement) and you also didn't block an editor who had reverted more, but was equally justified. You also misrepresent my counter argument, which is that I didn't edit war at all - not recently or in the past. Unfortunately what could have been a learning experiance and productive enforcement for THF has seemingly had no effect, with the same behaviour transferring to related pages (Bybee memo). This has been a huge failure, wasted time, and damaged the project. I'm sure AGK felt he was acting properly, and his misstatements are unintentional, and I hold no ill feeling (I've even warmed to THF), but his closing statement that consensus needs to be established showed a lack of due diligence, and the gross disparity of the sanction showed a lack of insight into the problem. The "delay" is a red herring, and these blocks were clearly punitive rather than preventative or educational - after all, no lessons seem to have been learned, as the blocks don't make sense! I hope we can all learn from this, and are suitably chastised, but from AGK all I see is further WP:BATTLE and misrepresentation. I don't want an apology, I just want the misstatements to stop. If that is by an acknowledgement or by AGK just dropping this matter, and not repeating this behaviour, I don't mind. Verbal chat 14:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to let everybody know that I am aware of the significant opposition to my decision. Six comments, for what they're worth:
  • Where there is opposition to my actions, I will always reflect in full on whether my actions were valid or not, and always reflect on the merits of any statements that are in opposition to my actions.
  • In this case, I did so. Edit warring is a bad thing. When somebody makes an edit you disagree with, the correct response is to open discussion—not to repeatedly revert them. My thinking is that an editor who is too revert-happy is one who needs to be shown the door from the article, if only for a little while.
  • Of course this isn't a major drama (cf Jehochman's fifth point). I'm not looking for a fight over this. The way I see it, we're just working through our differences of opinion until we arrive at a result that helps the project. If that means that I'm overruled by my peers, then so be it. Everybody gets it wrong sometimes; I just don't think that this case is one of my times.
  • Verbal says that I am engaging in further "battling and misrepresentation" (cf above comment). That is untrue, and also kind of insulting. I might be airing an opinion that you disagree with. If you want to say that, then please do so: that's what a discussion consists of. But to say that I am maliciously manipulating the facts is something else entirely.
  • Last point. Maybe a consensus did exist that, by implication, made the addition of a NPOV-template wrong. I don't know; as I said, I don't follow developments on the Waterboarding article. But if one did, and an editor (THF) persistently added it anyway, the correct response is not too play a tit-for-tat game of reverting him. (One, and just maybe two, reverts are fine.) It's to call in an uninvolved administrator and have them warn the editor. Editors who edit war instead of following that procedure aren't helping things—and they should be sanctioned, irrespective of the merits of their contributions elsewhere. I guess the central message I'm trying to get across is that the editors I sanctioned shouldn't have sank to THF's level.
  • I too hope that we can all work productively together in future. I'm not trying to be a giant dick; I'm just trying to do my job, and sanction those people I think need to be sanctioned. AGK 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Verbal's criticisms are a little over the top, probably because they got blocked. One revert is acceptable, two is a mistake that merits a "stop that" and any further reverts constitute edit warring, in my humble opinion. The distance between normal editing and sanctionable behavior is more than one diff (unless that diff is really extreme). The pattern should be: good-wrong-warning-wrong-sanction. There's some good feedback here, and I request that all parties tone down the recriminations and recognize that all of us will be better off if we try to get along. Jehochman 17:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to come across as harsh, so apologies about that. I didn't mean to write so much either! As I said I think they were misunderstandings and mistakes etc, by all, made in good faith - not maliciously, but still wrong.. I hope there are no hard feelings, and thanks for the (unexpected and most welcome) comment above - unfortunately not usual on wikipedia. Cheers, Verbal chat 19:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness Violation

AGK, is http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Supreme_Deliciousness now formatted correctly? Nefer Tweety (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks great. I'm sorry that I had to ask that you dot your i's and cross your t's, but truly, the less problems are with a request from the start the easier it is to process. Now if you'll just fill out form 42b… AGK 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AGK, you have asked for the "Request for Enforcement" to be correctly formatted, which I spent a great deal of time doing... then what? Nefer Tweety (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to look at your request in full. But another administrator should process your complaint shortly – and, now that the correct format has been used, they will be able to action it if there is indeed a problem. AGK 23:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Gosei precepts, also known as the "Five Reflections" (1932)

I wonder if I might invite you to re-visit your memory of a minor talk page posting in 2008 -- User talk:AGK/Archive/37#Mentorship. In this long-forgotten context, please reconsider another modest thread User talk:AGK/Archive/37#Gosei and its corollary at User talk:AGK/Archive 36#Request for Arbitration.

Refreshing your memory: The "Five Reflections" (Go-sei "five truths" in Japanese), was promulgated in 1932 on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Emperor Meiji's Imperial Prescript to the Soldiers and Sailors.

The enquiries were the initiative and words of Rear Admiral Hajime Matsushita, who was then the superintendent of the Imperial Japanese Naval Academy at Etajima. The precepts informed daily meditation in the Imperial Japanese Navy prior to 1947; and a similar practice continues to be observed in the modern Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces.

Are these concepts inapplicable or unwelcomed in our Misplaced Pages setting?

Traditional translation
  • Hast thou not gone against sincerity?
  • Hast thou not felt ashamed of
    thy words and deeds?
  • Hast thou not lacked vigor?
  • Hast thou exerted all possible efforts?
  • Hast thou not become slothful?
Modern restatement

Have I compromised my sincerity?

Have I spoken or acted shamefully?
Have I been lacking in spiritual vigor?
Must I regret the level of my effort?
Have I lapsed into laziness?
Romaji

Hitotsu, shisei ni motoru, nakarishika

Hitotsu, genkou ni hazuru, nakarishika
Hitotsu, kiryoku ni kakuru, nakarishika
Hitotsu, doryoku ni urami, nakarishika
Hitotsu, bushou ni wataru, nakarishika

Explanation: Each of the self-checking questions begins with the word "One" (Hitostu). Instead of listed elements &ndsash; one, two, three, etc. – none of the Gosei are subordinated to another. In other words, all of the precepts are significant and equal in value. None are subordinated to another. Each of the introspective enquiries ends with an archaic or classical Japanese phrase meaning "hast thou not?" or "have I not?" (nakarishika).
See reference sources: (a) Robinson, Paul, Nigel De Lee and Don Carrick. (2008). Ethics Education in the Military. Aldershot, England; Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing. 13-ISBN 978-0-754-67114-5, 10-ISBN 0-754-67114-3; 12-978-0-75467115-2, 10-ISBN 0-754-671151; OCLC 170203920; (b) Yale University Kendo, 2007

If these were not inappropriate enquiries in 2008, why should they be less welcome or timely or practical in 2009? in 2010?

In this explicit context, I renew an earlier invitation suggesting that you consider joining a mentorship committee for me, if only during the difficult start-up phase. (see User:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts). --Tenmei (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not have the time to invest in such an endeavour. But I hope it goes well for you. AGK 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I only know about of some of the time-constraints which have evolved since the first of the year; and it is easy to understand your reluctance to take on more than you have done. In this context, it is seemly to mention comments and actions which indirectly tend to benefit me and others like me. Thanks. ----Tenmei (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what it is you want of me. Could you please speak more plainly? AGK 15:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I gladly acknowledge that your time is limited. I understand "no". I dimly perceive a decision-tree which measures consequences I can't foresee; and I have the grace to be grateful for glimpses of your decision-making process.

Ping. I have sent you an e-mail. I cannot write more plainly -- not because I am unable or unwilling, but because the venue forecloses that option. I can continue to try to figure out how to do better; and I can hope. --Tenmei (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

UCTA

Up for this article yet? Ironholds (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Still seriously mobbed. Maybe in a month or so, if you can wait that long? AGK 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)