"Doth perfect beauty stand in need of praise at all?" Where this user currently is, the time is 08:19, Monday 10 March 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 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".

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easily done. I'll wait for you to submit your statement before deciding how to vote. Thanks for your note, AGK [•] 23:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can I ask for a request of an investigation of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry of Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk · contribs)? The explanation of it is on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumandokkangcabatuan. Thank you! FairyTailRocks (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@FairyTailRocks: Sorry, I don't usually run routine SPI checks, so you'll need to wait for another member of the checkuser team to attend to the request. They should get to it fairly soon! Thanks, AGK [•] 10:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am innocent and I plead not guilty. Merry Christmas everyone. *hugs* Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on -- and I note your comment thereon is reasonable -- I still find "broadly construed" to be problematic in any event. I also would like ArbCom to finally decide to use normal English word usage <g> which would cut down on a lot of the interpretation problems evident over the years. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using "broadly but reasonably construed" for awhile, but for some reason people didn't like it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Broadly but reasonably construed" would probably sit poorly with me because its logical converse is "broadly and unreasonably construed"! AGK [•] 15:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "broadly" means "treating borderline situations as included rather than as excluded," but it does not mean "treating everything included for which there is any conceivable argument for inclusion, however far-fetched." Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: Broadly construed is almost a non-sentence, these days, because we use it so frequently. I'm afraid ArbCom's legalistic language will probably never go away. AGK [•] 15:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the RFAR had already closed, I noted the following comment you made there:

"By 'material about the ongoing DS review', I meant the diffs you originally included that illustrate how long the review has taken. I see you have now followed up with a statement that confirms your request is basically saying the review needs to hurry up. My point was that RFAR is not the place to demand we conclude the review now. AGK [•] 11:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)"

No, it was not me who urged the closing of the review. According to my reading of the proposal, any appeals would be decided on the basis of whatever procedures were in place at the time; the new procedures would have no retroactive effect.

The diffs you refer to were not of the proposal review, but of a very carefully worded clarification request that Sandstein made to the committee, a few days after the warnings. He had three specific questions:

1) whether the warnings were appropriate

2) whether they could be rescinded

3) the avenue for appeal, so that editors could be notified.

The second question might still be worth exploring. It seems customary to first go to the person who issued something to see if they would be willing to retract it. But discretionary sanctions are a special beast. They are not supposed to be reversed by other admins. But can the admins reverse themselves, especially when templates and such change with the passage of time? I have never seen anything that addresses that issue. And this seems like a very special case, being as it is on the cusp between old and new procedures.

Best regards, —Neotarf (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein has made a statement:

• "[3]In retrospect your statement does appear comparatively tame and would not ordinarily merit a warning on its own".

In the context of Sandstein's above statement and of the thread here, would you be willing to consider the possibility of issuing an opinion that the Committee would have no objection if he rescinded or struck his actions at this point? If not, on what basis do you feel you cannot do so?

Best regards, —Neotarf (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't too busy, I would like some advice. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. You can explain the situation here or by e-mail, whichever you prefer. AGK [•] 09:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have email, sir. And thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]