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 69.125.134.86 (talk) at 17:12, 22 August 2013 (→‎Categories: Typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"I myself know nothing, except just a little, enough to extract an argument from another man who is wise and to receive it fairly."

Where this user currently is, the time is 08:46, Friday 05 July 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".

Hello

Hello, Arcticocean. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Heads Up

Just to let you know that I have mentioned you at ANI in the context of something else - [1]. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: Thanks for letting me know. I will gather my thoughts and weigh in there (though it is safe to say I support your removal of Russavia's talk page access.) AGK [•] 20:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arbitration motion

Thank you for the comment in my talk page. I have never thought you held "ill-will" towards me, but it is good to know that you do not. I do, however, believe that you have a preference towards Lecen. Whether this is because you have known him longer, give greater weight to his FA stars, or simply because he is more likeable than me...I don't know. But that's what I feel, and that's what I expressed in my statement at the Arbcomm amendment's page.
Perhaps what I do feel towards you is a lack of trust (confidence).
Regardless, for the record, I also do not have any grudge or anger towards you, Lecen, or any of Lecen's friends. I don't know any of you personally to have any opinion on you as people.
On your comment on the amendment's page, you mention that I carry a "baggage" from the closed case, but use as evidence my response to Lecen's comment (where he calls me a Fascist propagandist) on the same page. The question I ask myself is: "Why is Lecen even commenting on this amendment request?" He is not involved in the amendment, I did not mention him at all on my statement, and he has no significant contribution history on the Falkland Islands article (has he even ever edited that article?). My only answer is that he is acting out of hate, a grudge.
I don't think any of my actions justify his behavior. I also don't understand how you can, from this discussion between Lecen and me, reach the conclusion that I should be denied the request to edit the Falkland Islands article. It's things like these that raises red flags to me.
You write, on my talk page, that my body of edits was "scrutinized". I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly 7 years. How long back have you analyzed my edits? How can a move request from February 2012 justify accusations of "battleground conduct" and "tendentious editing"? If there was concern, why did none of the arbitrators ever bother to ask me questions about my editing behavior (you know, heard the other side of the story)?
Yes, I pointed out Brazilians and Brazilianists during the February 2012 move request. Neither are insults, and I merely intended to point out the existence of a bias. In South America, the rivalry between Brazil and Argentina is a hot subject (not to the extent of the Palestine-Israel problem, but along similar lines). Having a Brazilian editor editing controversial topics related to Argentina is worthy of great concern, and vice-versa. Especially strange is having the editor refuse to use Spanish sources on the basis that "English is preferred over Spanish". Why did this editor not follow the same guideline when editing his Brazilian-related articles?
Back on topic: Back during the February 2012 move request, I did not know the existence of a "Conflict of Interest noticeboard" and, just today, I learned the existence of the WP:MRV (from this discussion [2]). But, I acted incorrectly during the 2012 move request, and I have constantly expressed my regret for it.
But that's all I recall ever doing wrong. If you think this is incorrect, I would wholeheartedly appreciate knowing what it is that you think I did wrong and should not do again. All I ever hear back from arbitrators is a sense of "you know what you did wrong"...but I honestly don't know what (other than my behavior in the move request) else I did that should not be done again.
I am also extremely confused about the case proceedings. Lecen apparently not only used the evidence page to list his points, but he also used the talk page of the evidence page and (as he claims in the amendment page) also used e-mails. I was never aware that we could use e-mails to further state our case. These strange proceedings are what also make me question the validity of the case's conclusion. Why were a topic ban and harsh accusations (battleground & tendentious editing) necessary? Why was the block on such a wide-range (Latin America)?
And, yes, I know that this is a long message...but I am expressing a heartfelt honesty. Please don't ignore this message, but do feel free to take your time with a response. Send me an e-mail, if you want.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the grammar from my statement and removed the Lynch part (please ignore it). I want to move on. Lecen has a conscience of his own (and I don't need to be it), and hopefully other editors will be of help. Thanks.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have just followed my fear and not opened up to you. I'm sorry for the problem my statement here seems to have ignited. I know that you are involved in other matters of more importance and don't need this drama. Again, sorry.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MarshalN20: Thank you for your comments. I think some of your comments above are fair and reasonable, but I remain very concerned about the hostility between you and Lecen. I really wish you would both learn to work together, or to stay out of one another's path. In order to try to encourage you to both move on, I have suggested at the AE thread that the proposed interaction ban would be a good idea. If the interaction restriction is implemented, I really hope you will abide by it, and move on to Wikipedia pursuits that are so much more worthy of your time! AGK [•] 22:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AGK. The interaction ban will help solve the problem, but I hope my other suggestions are also taken into consideration and the "clarification" part of the original request is also examined. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SA

Regarding [3]. I did not link to T. Canens's lift of the ban simply because it had not yet happened when I posted my question to ArbCom. I suppose I could have come back to ArbCom after T. Canens lifted the ban in order to make a note of it myself, but I noticed Courcelles already did that before your post. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt

AGK, I have a doubt. What is the correct procedure to ask the Arbcom to clarify an arbitration outcome? MarshalN20 has insisted over and over that he was topic banned because he made a simple move request on Paraguayan War (a fine example can be seen above). As far as I know he and Cambalachero were topic banned due to the use of unreliable sources in Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles to Argentine history. --Lecen (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When does a topic ban become a topic ban? Marshall has violated the terms of said topic ban multiple times on arbitrators' talk pages, and skirted it elsewhere. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I kindly request you (again) to please stop meddling into problems that do not involve you. I have not broken my topic ban at all; that is just your personal assumption skewed by your friendship with the other party. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'll continue posting. It's my personal opinion that your deliberate skirting of the topic ban is simply a way of continuing the dispute that the Argentine history arb case was supposed to solve. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only person "continuing the dispute" is Lecen. He continues hounding me (how else did he come here to AGK's page?), continues trying to get his buds (you, Ed) to attack me, continues insulting me (calling me a Fascist propagandist), and continues trying to block me from editing Wikipedia. I am honestly tired of all this childish nonsense. Please stop it.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lecen:, all that matters is that he is topic-banned. Dwelling on the whys and wherefores is likely only to prolong the dispute and prevent the community from moving on.

@MarshalN20 and The ed17: If somebody has violated the terms of an arbitration remedy, the appropriate thing to do is file an enforcement request. I would encourage you to do that without further delay, if it is necessary. If somebody has behaved disruptively but not violated an arbitration remedy, then I'm sure you know asking them to stop – or asking the community to stop them – is the appropriate thing to do. (Finally, as a passing thought that requires no discussion: I really am surprised that this inter-personal dispute is still going on, despite the fact the arbitration case is closed.) AGK [•] 10:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. But it's hard to move on when MarshalN20 goes around saying that he has no idea why he was topic banned and that I'm insulting him by calling him a Fascist propagandist (which is untrue). Playing the innocent victim while tarnishing the accuser's reputation has been always a good tactic on Wikipedia. Since none of the arbitrators whom he seeked to say those things dared to tell him to stop and also to explain why he was topic banned I'm left with no choice but to ask the Arbcom to clarify the matter. But thank you for your answer, --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My completely uninvolved thoughts reading this: Calling anyone a facist propagandist should be worthy of a perma ban. It is weird to not provide a diff. I think the acusation without diff should also be ban worthy. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Right now we are in the process of establishing an interaction ban. You can check my contribution history to read on the current request, and there you can also see the many ugly accusations made against me. Particularly bothersome are those claims related to Fascism. Not only have I not ever used any such sources, but the continuous repetition of "misogynists, anti-Semites, etc." is aimed at painting me as something I have never been in my entire life. The interaction ban should be of help, but I am under the impression that my topic ban was unfairly evaluated under the disparate claims made against me...and I hope that (if that's the case) it gets re-analyzed and narrowed. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

courage and analysis
Thank you for what you do in mediation, "being reasonable and offering to compromise", displayed again in your recent courage to structure a complex situation, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 October 2008)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 217th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for generously permitting me not to have to ask permission (and whose?) before adding an infobox to "A Crossbreed". I wonder by what logic Andy could not do the same if "indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes". He would have to ask someone else to add an infobox to his own articles?? (One of them appears on the Main page right now.) - I don't think it's reasonable, nor fair. I don't see a single one of the infoboxes he added (looking at 19 debated cases) as problematic. Please consider. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

voted twice

You've voted twice here. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for letting me know! AGK [•] 15:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are banned users allowed to use their talk page as a blog?

I'm thinking about [4]. I can file an official Request for Clarification about the scope of the ban, if you'd rather have it 100% official. Thanks. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker here. Why? Why do you care, Someone? Really, I'd like to know. I've always disliked KW's talkpage, myself, and have as far as possible avoided posting on it. (To be absolutely frank, I'm not crazy about the user either.) The messy way he "refactors" the page, re-titling and moving around people's comments in order to collect them in (what he thinks is) a structured way, thumbing his nose at chronology as well as outright removing whatever he doesn't want to hear (which is "allowed", but not gentlemanly), is an abomination in the sight of the lord. I don't like that page. I'd rather not get involved with it in any way. But if KW's talkpage access is removed on the ground of "using it as a blog" or anything similar, short of egregious personal attacks, I will get involved, and make trouble. That's not a threat — I don't even know what kind of trouble, it'll depend on the circumstances, but trouble. Just thought I'd mention it.
Another point: if KW's talkpage access is removed, it'll serve as a mere encouragement to a certain class of users to turn it into a shrine. And if the page is fullprotected to remove that problem, the project is going to sink a little further in many people's estimation. (Plus, there'll be some more trouble from me.) Bishonen | talk 20:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I've decided that the great-big-mess vs. benefit ratio is too large for me to bother with this one. There's a pretty unevenly enforced habit of removing talk page access when the talk page isn't being used to discuss the removal of the block or ban. It never seems to have been encoded in any formal policy, though, and is done erraticly enough that it probably shouldn't be. So long as he isn't getting people to proxy for him, I think just ignoring it is the best bet.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Bishonen says, who cares? Kiefer has done the project some good, and as for proxy editing, big deal--it might do the guitar field some good, and I doubt that it'll be a problem. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tricky issue, but when presented with individual cases (such as Kiefer) I would not hesitate to allow the banned user to retain their talk page access – for several reasons. First, their talk page matters only when you pay attention to it, so just ignore it. Second, every banned user is also a potential future contributor. Revoking a banned user's talk page access seems all too much like kicking them when they're down for my liking, and that could jeapordise the chance that they will successfully readjust to editing if they're ever unbanned. And third, we just have so many other things to do that are worth our time, don't we? Let the banned user talk away on their talk page. They aren't actually affecting the community or the encyclopedia. As for proxy editing, it won't keep me up at night, in no small part because I know any actually harmful proxy editing is going to take place off-wiki (probably by e-mail). If anybody is silly enough to become Kiefer's permanent proxy, they'll quickly attract the ire of the community, and what will be will be.

    One other observation that hasn't already been brought up: banned users aren't non-persons, and bans aren't symbolic gestures that must be protected with patriotic zeal. They are merely a special type of block that cannot be reversed except by consensus; bans still retain the essential purpose of a block – namely, that they are made merely to prevent disruption. The banned person can't edit the project, and that's all that matters. Everything else is irrelevant.

    User:Someone(…), I would suggest there are many other things you could do with your time than to open an RFCl on this issue. However, knowing the Wikipedia community, it's quite likely a tiresome RFCl on this issue is going to be opened sooner or later; the drama gods seem to demand these things of us. So I won't be surprised if you open one (and I will understand why it was opened), but I will be disappointed. Regards, AGK [•] 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically, the policy does forbid banned editors from using their talk page for anything but an appeal and is one of the key differences between a ban and a block. I personally don't care and dislike users being denied talk page access without disruption, but that is what the policy says. Of course, the Arbs can simply disregard that aspect of the policy in their treatment of the ban. Previous blocked or banned editors have been given special exemptions to the relevant policies and there is no present reason for Kiefer to be denied such an exemption.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's that, policy-in-your-head? If you're referring to WP:BAN, I ought to mention that I just edited it, to remove the internal inconsistency between its different statements about talkpage access for banned editors. But not even the part I removed amounted to what you say. Bishonen | talk 12:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • It does seem to me like TDA has called this one right. The policy states that a talk page can only be used by a banned user if they are pursuing an appeal. In the case of ArbCom bans, since ArbCom only hears siteban appeals by e-mail, ArbCom-banned users cannot edit their talk page under current policy. However, I stand by my earlier comments that the best position is to leave talk page access alone (except in the case of serious abuse). One issue that hasn't been raised before that might be worth considering is whether allowing the banned user to retain talk page access simply makes it more difficult for them to disengage from Wikipedia. Is it kinder to cut the banned user off completely? AGK [•] 22:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general rule, I don't think it's helpful to take a literalist reading of site policy. Wikipedia has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it. Therefore, the best question isn't whether policy prohibits banned users from editing their talk page, but "Does a majority of the community think we should automatically revoke their talk page access?" AGK [•] 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishonen just made me aware of this discussion. As stated above, she made a change to WP:BAN. I reverted it and opened a topic on the talk page. Of course, my reversion and comments have apparently created more drama. It's always good to know that no matter how high we fill the cup of drama at Wikipedia, we can always increase the size of the cup.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories & Roles

Hey, AGK, Is there a reason you don't have the Admin and ARBCOM categories on your User Page? Sometimes people try to find a user by going to the category listing Wikipedians who are part of a committee or group and I'm surprised not to see the tags on your profile. All the best, 69.125.134.86 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcticocean&oldid=569749647"