User talk:Arcticocean

Signature

You stole my ø! Jon Harald Søby 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

*evil giggles* :) Anthøny 14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

Test wiki

Ok, I've given you bureaucrat rights. Don't do anything stupid with it :) --FiLiP ¤ 09:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's great, and I won't ;P Anthøny 12:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

Thank you

• :-) --Sarvaturi 17:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My pleasure ;) Anthøny 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

Opinion

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

"Kindly refrain from practising the same disruptive conduct you were blocked for on your other accounts. It's simply a huge waste of time. Constructive contributions are much more enjoyable." Anthøny ✉ 13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) -Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KingMarlyn"

KingMarlyn wholeheartedly disagrees with your opinated statement. What is "more enjoyable" for you may not be the same for others. Being a relatively smart person, you know this. This also applies to what is "huge waste of time." KingMarlyn finds television a huge waste of time. CSI and The Real World are still on the air because it is not a huge waste of time for fans of those shows. KingMarlyn thanks you for your advice but thinks you are prejudiced, biased and arrogant. If you find that you would like to reply to this reply, please engage here as I am unable to edit my userpage at Wikipedia. KingMarlyn 3:02pm, 14 September 2008 (EST).

Indeed. I respect your opinion, but I would observe that, in holding such vehemently anti-Wikipedia views, you have little chance of being unblocked on any of your (many) (sock puppet) accounts.

*Sigh.* AGK [•] 20:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The goal of vandalism is not to be unlocked. Vandalism is the willful or malicious destruction (defacing) of public or private property. The mutliple accounts are a part of the vandalism. They have created more "waste time" but KingMarlyn imagines a lot of users love cleaning up vandalism, ie the task force. So based on the last three replies, where are we? What has your opinions changed? KingMarlyn wishes you a wonderful evening. KingMarlyn 5:20pm, 14 September 2008 (EST).

"anti-Wikipedia views" have stemmed from piss poor wikipedians (mostly Admins), C'est la vie. KingMarlyn 5:23pm, 14 September 2008 (EST).

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

"banned means banned"

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hi AGK, I saw your performance on Will Beback user page: "banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history".

So I thought you'd be kind enough to do it for me too, please. I've already asked barnstars to be removed , and they were, but now I believe removing barnstars only is not good enough. So, could you please remove everything from my user page leaving only banned user template, and then redirect my talk to my user page, that it also would have nothing else, but banned user template. Could you please also delete all user pages in my user space? I am asking you to do this because as you said "banned means banned", and also because "the banned user template" is the only thing I want to be associated with my user pages on wikipeia. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I will not honour such a request. AGK [•] 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But, why, oh why, AGK? I am banned, am I not? "Banned means banned", is it not? Are you refusing to do it because I deserve the honor less than Will BeBack does :-) I simply cannot believe that admins get preferential treatment even in adding "banned user templates" to user pages :-) Cheers --Mbz1 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No melodrama, please. If there was a picture of one hundred naked trolls on your userpage, I would still be disinclined to take action. The point of your ban is to exclude you from the English Wikipedia, and I am not about to assist you in circumventing that purpose. NRN. Regards, AGK [•] 20:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Melodrama"? I am having fun, are you?

In case you did not notice it is exactly what I am asking you to do. Please "exclude me "from the English Wikipedia" even more than I already am. because I am proud to be excluded from such community

• in which functionaries are using language like this:edit summary: "the lunatics are running the asylum" and like this edit summary: "fuck this site and the abusive cowards that for the most part administrate it." and are still allowed to keep their tools.

• The community that is absolutely correctly described like this:...Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.It is truly a "Tyranny of the Ignorant".

• The community, in which you, AGK, are an arbitrator. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I could not have known

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

You wrote: "If you edit Wikipedia under your own name, you acknowledge and accept that there are certain risks to doing so. If you edit under your real-name in so disruptive a way as to be banned, and you had no problem with the preceding disruptive behaviour reflecting badly on your real-name, then you could not reasonably take issue with a banned template."

No, it is a wrong assumption. A normal persons cannot predict what sick ones will do to him.

In my wildest dreams I could not have predicted I'd be blocked by a closed tribunal, a tribunal, in which I was not allowed to participate, a tribunal, which gave me no warning.

In my wildest dreams I could not have predicted I'd be banned by a sick, cowardly and mostly anonymous lynch mob with me not being allowed to say anything in my defense!

In my wildest dreams I could not have predicted I'd be blocked and then banned after I was under a self-requested block for more than 6 months!, and for something I did on Meta. Even now banned Will Beback :called my ban "a precedent".

So, no, I could have predicted what was coming my way. I was editing under my real life name. It is at my pictures that are displayed at my user page. I know it is useless to ask you to remove the sick template. That's why I am asking you to remove the pictures, and redirect my talk to my user page. If you have some compassion still left in you, you'll do it. If you do not...well it is not my problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Also you write "The point of the template is to make it clear that a user is banned. As a checkuser, I know this is necessary when I'm tracking accounts back to blocked users; I need to know if there is a banned user at work in a given situation, and other checkusers and administators surely must too." It is BS. There is nothing different for CU process between blocked and banned users, and besides there's a list of banned users in case you did not know.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Message

I replied to your message on Foundation wiki feedback#Our_projects. πr² (t • c) 20:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved.

RE: User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection

Philippe replied on Sue's behalf. Just letting you know in case you stopped watching the page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for letting me know. I'll respond to Philippe now. AGK [•] 18:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved.

testwiki

Hello AGK, I am just wondering, what is testwiki:MediaWiki:Userrights-groupshelp about? It doesn't make any sense. Is it still relevant, especially since I think there was some tweaking in relation to SUL and testwiki? This, that and the other (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just looked again and saw that it was from 2008! Probably not relevant anymore, then. Shall I delete it? This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not recall why it was necessary to add that notice, so please do what you think is best. Thanks, AGK [•] 10:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If I had to guess, 2008 was when SUL came out, and they initially had it turned on for admins only. My guess is that people wanted to test it out and unify their logins, so they asked to become a sysop on testwiki since that was viewed as a very easy sysop flag to get. So it could probably be tossed. --Rschen7754 10:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved.

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Resolved.

ACE 2018

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, add it just below the box.

---

Hello Anthony,

In your recent candidate statement, you say "I commit to examining matters diligently, to clearly explaining my decision to you, and to being approachable."

The following questions are in the context of your candidacy for the 2018 arbitration committee elections.

1. In December 2014, while serving as an arbitrator with checkuser privileges, you sent an email refusing to remove Personally Identifying Information, as defined by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. The new November 2018 non-disclosure agreement requires new arbitrators and checkusers to agree to follow the privacy policy. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_personal_data_policy Do you agree with this policy and under what circumstances do you believe checkusers should refuse to remove private information?
2. In March 2014, while you were a sitting arbitrator, a former two-term arbitrator filed an arbitration case against you, after you indefinitely blocked a user who had a lengthy history of positive contributions to the encyclopedia, and who you were in an apparent dispute with, without attempting to discuss anything with the user before blocking. Among other things, the case request raised concerns about the assumptions you were making about the user's mental disposition, your conflict of interest in disputes you have been a party to or have strong feelings about per WP:INVOLVED, and the use of diffs which were actually quite different than what was represented.

In view of my participation in that case request, as well as highly personalized, strongly worded statements you have made about me publicly and in communications with me on behalf of the Signpost in my role as a writer of the weekly Arbitration Report, doesn't this edit represent another conflict of interest? Now that you have returned to editing, do you intend, or do you believe it is appropriate, for you to initiate indefinite sanctions against any of the other contributors who participated in that case request?

Notification of participants in the "Use of admin tools by AGK" case request Casliber Crisco 1492 Modernist Dpmuk The ed17 DavidLeighEllis Risker Anthonyhcole Dank NE Ent Hasteur Victoriaearle Bbb23 TParis Cube Lurker as well as the contributors who posted questions at the WP:ACE2018 arbitration committee elections. Gerda Arendt Collect Rschen7754Nick SilkTork Banedon Hawkeye7 Softlavender Peacemaker67 Alex Shih Cinderella157 Liz Winged Blades of Godric Ritchie333 Atsme Carrite power~enwiki Oshwah Feminist Guerillero Beyond My Ken Amanda K.e.coffman Smallbones Hijiri88 David Tornheim Piotrus 28bytes AugusteBlanqui Nosebagbear BU Rob13 Grillofrances Ryk72 If I have missed anyone, feel free to notify them.

Regards,

—Neotarf (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Even if this were not a speech in question's form, I do not think discussing the English Wikipedia with you would be appropriate while you are banned from editing it. You are rather misusing the cross-wiki ping feature. And while I indeed proposed the sanction that led to your ban, I do not see how that or anything else you would discuss (were it allowed) is not already on the public record. AGK ■ 21:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that arbitrators have the authority to suspend the privacy policy retroactively on an individual by banning them, and after that point you do not have to answer for your actions. I am not aware of any guidelines on the ping feature, but then again I am still looking for the policy you used to ban me. I am beginning to suspect it does not exist. Doxing, and the refusal to remove it is a safety issue and as such it needs as many eyes on it as possible. If you do not think WP:ADMINACCOUNT applies to you in this situation, perhaps someone else will ask in a different venue. Let me rephrase my second question more simply: do you think your actions in proposing a ban for me look like retaliation for questioning your actions in the "Use of admin tools by AGK" case, and if you are elected do you intend to recuse from any future discussions involving me? —Neotarf (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

My comment is only to say that there is a difference between "Do you agree with this policy" and "you must agree to follow this policy". The bar of agreeing with the policy is far higher than the WMF's bar of agreeing to follow it.--137.242.1.129 22:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Neotarf. Really not sure what the purpose of pinging me over something I posted four years ago and agree with AGK about the abuse of cross wiki ping. I remember nothing about the case and even if I did I would need to look at AGK's four years of contributions in the mean time before making any comment on their suitability to be an arb - a lot can change in four years. If you'd looked at my user page you'd have also noticed that a) I'm pretty much retired and b) that I'm fundamentally opposed to arbcom in it's current form so even more unsure what you wished to gain by this ping. Please do not ping me again on this subject.

(AGK - sorry for posting this on your user page but thought it best to keep it together). Dpmuk (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

E-mail

Sent you an e-mail.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolved.

Note my complaint please

As an active member of the OC, and for no other reason than you are listed first alphabetically (I am not sending this message to all members), please could you note for the record of OC proceedings, the simple matter of receipt of the complaint submitted here, or if not possible, the answer to the question, why this is apparently only possible via email in all circumstances. For reasons I am yet to ascertain, it is being removed from the talk page, and I fear the next step by the people who evidently don't want this complaint being heard, will be to lock me out of this project. BarryBoggside (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi BarryBoggside. This is an acknowledgement that the OC has received your complaint. We will now investigate and deliberate. Regards, AGK ■ 11:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Please report the results on my talk page here at Meta. I'm sorry it came to this, but as I hope you can see, all efforts to avoid a local issue becoming a global one, were nullified by local en.wiki users/procedures/customs. BarryBoggside (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Note also now that I am now fully locked out of Commons and rather disturbingly, the person doing it, Taivo, appears to have promoted themselves to a Foundation Executive, apparently blocking me from that site, "forever". Quite how anyone even has the gall to claim it is I who is doing the intimidating in any of this, is beyond me. Would you happen to know how/where I can report that massive abuse, without using email? BarryBoggside (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved.

CheckUser

I understand you can find out the IP of a Wikipedia user through this tool. I suspect that this and this account are sockpuppets for this account. Hope you can help me out. Cognissonance (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

(Not AGK) I think you're looking for w:WP:SPI, which is the proper venue to make requests like this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Resolved.

Donation

I donated a good amount, but I keep getting notices to donate. At least stop the request for donations or I wii not donate again! 70.59.27.41 14:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved.