User talk:AGK

"Spend a lot of time talking to customers face to face. You'd be amazed how many companies don't listen to their customers." —Henry Ross Perot (show another)


Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/محمد الخوبري

There were comments left on this SPI about your decline, as they point out that there were recent blocks. I'll leave it in your hands. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, fresh block this morning as well. GiantSnowman 10:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the notes. I'll take a second look at the case to determine if a check may now be required. AGK [•] 11:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but two of the users you marked confirmed don't exist :) Specifically the foreign language ones. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry: those were typos[1]. AGK [•] 09:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jonah Ayers

My name is Jonah Ayers. I was banned for tussling. It's been a while. I would like to come back. Jonah Ayers is my real name and I'd like to be able to edit here under that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.234.239 (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Supposing you are this editor, you would need to follow the procedure detailed here in order to appeal your block. AGK [•] 09:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

5 year admin anniversary

Today, I will have been an administrator for five years. Heavens knows why I'm still around, but I think this is a pretty good achievement :-). AGK [•] 13:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Many happy returns! IOU one jpeg of an anniversary-type cake.     ←   ZScarpia   13:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ey, well done. I know the feeling as I keep drifting off but always coming back. Made me check the date of my RfA and was shocked. Agathoclea (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting access to v.sniper

I want to use vandal sniper.--Deathlaser :  Chat  17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There are some preconditions to approval, and usually new editors are not given access; the tool is very powerful. If you want to apply anyway, please see User:Crazycomputers/VandalSniper/Applications. (Oh, and that's a great image on your userpage!) AGK [•] 09:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Please, I am not new. I have been edititng 5 months as an IP, thus I have been given Rollback really early.
Note: hope you like my userpage.
So please let me use it.--Deathlaser :  Chat  11:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you aren't experienced enough. If you're still interested in using the application in a couple of months, please make another request. You might want to try Huggle or Twinkle, which are both very easy to use. Regards, AGK [•] 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject name change

Hey AGK, by consensus, we changed WikiProject Thoroughbred racing to WikiProject Horse racing. But I'm now trying to transclude templates and move all the other stuff, and appear to be fouling it up entirely. I also asked Rich for help, but HELP! IF you have any knowledge or know who does - on transclusion of templates, I'd be ever so grateful. Montanabw(talk) 23:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have completed the move without issue. However, when you have a moment, you might want to use WP:AWB to update the transclusions of your WP template. HTH, AGK [•] 09:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Glock17gen4

An indef seems a little extreme for what is typical venting after a 1 week block. Yes, he certainly screwed up and I can even see extending it to a month for just the initial problems, but I would ask that you reconsider the duration. If you decide not to, I'm not going to labor the issue, just voicing a concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Looking at his talk page as a whole, with countless blocks and unblocks, I must confess that I see this editor as a completely lost cause. Scrolling from start to finish, and looking at the number of brown-background block messages, is truly concerning. However, if you think you can turn him back to the right track, then I am happy to restore his talk page access (or to allow you to do so: I have no preference, and please do not hesitate to undo my action). Regards, AGK [•] 01:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. I've vowed to stay out of MMA, and I would have to think about whether or not I would want to take him on as a project. Your terms are reasonable, even if I was hoping to not take on the responsibility. I'm on my way out of town, and will have to think about that. Thank you for being open minded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Border

Hi. Could you please add a border to the image on Template:Portal/Images/Pakistan. I am unable to, as the template is protected. The reason I think a border should be added is because in the current form, the white strip of the Pakistani flag does not show quite clearly and becomes camouflaged with the background. Adding a border will help show the entire flag and distinguish the white strip. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See for example how it's been done for Template:Portal/Images/Military of pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The template is only semi-protected, so you should be able to make the edit. AGK [•] 11:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm for some reason, I'm not able to edit it. I can only view source. Mar4d (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken: if you click here, you should be able to edit the template. MediaWiki would have considered you to be auto-confirmed many months ago. Kindly re-check, AGK [•] 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm nope I still can't edit it. I think the template is fully protected, not semi-protected, going by the colour of the padlock. Mar4d (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
My mistake: I see that the template is fully-protected because it is included on the cascading-protected template Template:Portal/Image lockboxes/Names. Sorry for the confusion. (Another editor has made the edit.) Regards, AGK [•] 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AC/DS

I saw that you changed the language of the template that only uninvolved admins can issue warning but now its clear its not the case as far as I understand.If it possible I think this template and the language of WP:AC/DS should be changed.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

{{uw-sanctions}} was always for the use of administrators at AE, rather than general use, which is why its language is so specific. If there is significant interest in opening that template up for use by any editor, I am happy to amend the reference to "uninvolved administrator"). AGK [•] 11:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok maybe I didn't understood the result of clarification.Can any editor(not admin) warn other editors that certain topic area under DS?If yes how he should he do it?--Shrike (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a non-administrator may place another editor on-notice. As of this edit, they may do so using that template with the parameter |admin=no, as in:

{{subst:Uw-sanctions|topic=a-i|Jerusalem|Please contact me if you have any questions|admin=no}}.

Hope this helps, AGK [•] 12:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Shrike (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Another question does logging of the warning could be done by regular editor? --Shrike (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I am perhaps not the best person to ask, because I personally am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that an editor can place others who edit the same topic "on notice" of discretionary sanctions. I see this leading to protracted tit-for-tat, and we certainly have enough of that as it is. AGK [•] 15:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche

Please see this edit [2] re this User:LHirsig, thanks...Modernist (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Primarily inconclusive due to the usual proxy use, but Likely. I indeffed LHirsig, and one sleeper. AGK [•] 15:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles04

Hello Anthony.

I see you've blocked user Charles04 as a sock of Rinpoche. Well he's certainly a sock, but not of Rinpoche who never ever did human rights as far as I know, though several of his associates (I mean people using his IP address) did.

Charles was editing at Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising (from May 2012) and no way was he ever going to do that but as a sock on a proxy, that's just being realistic. I don't doubt there are good Wikipedians editing this page who are using bona fide accounts on their ISP, but Charles isn't one of them.

By identifying him as a suspected sock puppet of Rinpoche's you were essentially 'outing' him. That's not fair on either of them. Is merely knowing Rinpoche a ground for blocking a user on Wikipedia these days?

The point about Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising (from May 2012) is that left to its own devices without the attention of people like Charles, it becomes just a mouthpiece of the Syrian resistance movement and that's not very satisfactory.

Blocking all these IP proxy ranges at the drop of a sock is also very tiresome for the expat community. 31.192.104.85 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "the expat community", these addresses are open proxies that leave Wikipedia open to heinous abuse. Regarding my block (it was actually User:DeltaQuad who blocked the account, based on my advice), I remarked that it was Symbol possible vote.svg Possible Charles04 is a Rinpoche sock—not that I am certain he is. I don't know what you would like me to do, but I'm rather sure I won't oblige. Is there a particular reason you are not editing from your account? AGK [•] 23:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The reason I'm not editing on my account is that I don't have one. It keeps on getting blocked when I try to open one :). For myself I run a VPN proxy (or whatever they are, not very up on computers) as a matter of routine. I do understand that there are people who do subject Wikipedia to heinous abuse but that's not we are talking here. For your information Rinpoche did (does, but he's no longer very active and it was mostly on IP) maths (mainly), philosophy, a few family things (all that Hirsig and MacDonald stuff), Buddhism and women's rights. Charles had recently been doing the Abu Qatada page and was planning to take the Syrian Timeline in hand. Not exactly Breivik and pedo territory, is it?
However I do understand this is your club and that editing is a privilege and not a right and I don't want you to do anything in particular. But people like Charles are just never going to edit on an ISP account. 31.192.104.82 (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Unjust Sockpuppetry Investigation Occurring

Dear AGK, I am writing to you since I have recently read that the arbitration committee headed up by individual arbitrators are the people with whom I should be speaking. Recently, I have been engaged in a dispute about User: Hopping's behavior on the page Osteopathic Medicine in the United States. It was recommended to me by live-wikipedia help that if the behavior persists (he has been reverting my edits citing an old, unresolved discussion as the basis for his reversions which only apply to some, not all of my edits) to report him to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and take it from there which I did today. Normally, I do not like to resort to such strong action but he has been persistent and has not changed his behavior despite talking with him on his talk page numerous times about waiting for a full discussion on the talk page to occur before taking decisive action and that the old DRN discussion he referred to was not binding and the Rfc referred to was still open and receiving new comments (one of which was my own but I did not add much but an agreement with the comment before mine though I am not opposed to removing my comment or modifying it to make it clearer). Immediately after getting the DRN involved Hopping decided to request a full-blown sockpuppetry investigation because of old, retired usernames that I no longer edit from: DoctorK88 and SharkinthePool. As you will see, DoctorK88 was the name I used when discussing the old issue on the DRN. At the time, I had asked an administrator if I could delete my username and the comments I had made on that name. Originally, he replied that I could not delete the username but could delete the comments as long as I did not change factual information which I did. However, after this occurred users restored what I deleted and the administrator reneged on what he gave me permission to do and would not allow himself to be held accountable for a grievous act of misinformation and banned me from the wikipedia help room for trying to hold him accountable-thus the creation of Sharkinthepool as I was not finished speaking. Regardless, both of these usernames have not been used to edit any articles in months (I was told it is impossible to actually "delete" usernames or I would have) and I believe for this reason that this is a malicious, unwarranted act on Hopping's part and that this does not qualify as sockpuppetry since I am clearly making a fresh start under a new name and it does not qualify as sockpuppetry by definition with perhaps the exception of the fact that I added support for DoctorK88's opinion (I would be happy to disclose that DoctorK88 was my old name on the talk page now that I am cognizant that this can be interpreted as sockpuppetry-I was unaware of this fact). My edits under this name have been, by and large, grammatical in nature and I have been editing a wide variety of articles and going through the proper channels in doing so including the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States page-I do not believe that Hopping's reverts are warranted-I was, in fact, told that he was completely wrong to make these reversions so prematurely before the completion of a discussion on the talk page (which took effort to get him to do in the first place) and this user has evaded my comments and not been constructive at all and this malicious accusation is the worse offense yet. The issue being disputed is not even really a contentious one-it is simply a matter of nomenclature and abbreviations! Due to my previous ignorance of the "clean start" policy (this should have been clearly mentioned to me when I asked admins several times about deleting my old username) I would be willing to revise my comment on the talk page in support of DoctorK88's proposed changes (though I really just echoed the sentiment of someone else who supported DoctorK88's statements) and for the sake of transparency say that was my old account, that's perfectly fine. What is not fine is what Hopping is doing. He needs to be told that this is not a proper response to being called to a DRN when someone does not blindly accept his point of view as fact and actually makes logical points about an article and modernizing and clarifying the nomenclature. I look forward to your response AGK. Sincerely TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.-After reading Hopping's description more closely, I also would like to classify this is a personal attack (wikipedia help said making unsubstantiated accusations-which he did and made what could easily be viewed as defamatory statements such as my comments being "hostile" which they most certainly are not). I must reiterate that this user's behavior is simply unacceptable. If you look at the old DRN under DoctorK88 I was not hostile at all and in fact encouraged my fellow users numerous times to work with me and not against me to work toward a mutually agreeable solution and I have not been hostile to Hopping but have countered his claims which were often false which he clearly does not like. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S.-Hopping has now made the erroneous sockpuppetry case against me public by providing the link to it on the help reference desk page when I asked who the correct person to speak to would be if someone made such an erroneous accusation. This is clearly another malicious and unnecessary act, obviously I was not asking him and it was an act of defamation to put that out in public for the entire wikipedia community to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden8823 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


Sock puppetry case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DoctorK88. Bryan Hopping T 04:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Hopping has now also been warned by another user on the desk reference page to not "poke the bear" and to read WP:Hound implying that he is wikihounding me thereby substantiating my claims of his motives and behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Contact_if_someone_purposely_and_erroneously_accuses_you_of_sockpuppetry.3F TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser block

I saw that you {{Checkuserblock-account}} blocked CIuebot beta testing (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log)) & HuggIe debug edition (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log)). These other accounts were all created in the same time. Some of these a clearly impersonators so I blocked them...want to run a checkuser on the others?

not blocked
blocked

— Scientizzle 12:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User:AGK (addmin) - just hardblocked. Secretlondon (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, and I'm feeding the IPs to a Steward, so the associated addresses are also globally locked. Thanks chaps. AGK [•] 13:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

status

Re lofty heights -- it's not clear to me whether accepting sysop/CU/Arbcom represents "heights" or descending into self-inflicted Wiki-hell... Nobody Ent 10:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly the latter... AGK [•] 10:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Something about Samofi......

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [3] -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pray explain why you thought it inappropriate to take this up with me directly before seeking a review at a Noticeboard. Did you not read the bold notice of "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." at the top of ANI? (I have commented at the thread.) AGK [•] 22:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Because I wasn't exactly sure who to talk to. Savneli has been blocked by User:Ironholds (presumably on the grounds that he's Iaaasi's sock-/meatpuppet), but in the end it was you who's reinstated User:Samofi's indef ban. I can only assume that you've talked to Ironholds about this, but I haven't found any (public) records of anything that would've implied even that Samofi's been linked to Savneli, only the notice of the extension of the block. Since the handling of the whole issue appeared to be somewhat obscure to me, I wasn't sure how many people have been involved in it, hence the ANI entry. -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh well, it seems like User:MuZeMike has granted your wish and archived the ANI thread. User:Bizovne on the other hand has already created a new sockpuppet with the sole purpose of my harassment (User:CoolKoon jebe svoji matku = "CoolKoon fucks his mother"). Since it's almost 100% certain that this harassment account belongs to Bizovne, comparing the two accounts' technical data would finally prove that this has nothing to do with Samofi. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: I've also created an SPI entry for this.
Excuse me, but it was never my wish for the thread to be archived, nor do I find very helpful your suggestion that I would somehow weasel out of a proper review of one of my administrative (or checkuser) actions. You appear to be convinced that these accounts are are all sock-puppets of someone, but that you disagree with me about whom the owners are. I don't really think it is a good use of the community's time to puzzle out the behavioural links between three accounts, in order to determine where precisely the connections lie, when technical data confirms that they are all socks created for the purpose of evasion or abuse. If you have an especially convincing argument that my earlier block was wrong, and that the sockmaster is in fact someone else, then please feel free to correct the userpage tags accordingly. I have always been of the view that technical data is of limited use in very many cases, and that the most emphasis should be placed on how the socks behave. While an account's location can be obscured (by routine IP address re-assignment, or the varying breadth of ranges used by ISPs in address assignment) or hidden altogether (by the use of broken or anonymising proxies), and other technical indicators can be very easily spoofed (albeit with a typically-unconvincing result), very few people find it easy to change their interests, quirks, or behaviour. Even through the internet, we can attain a very good grasp of someone's personality, and an even better grasp of their behaviour, and circumventing this grasp is almost impossible. So by all means follow the behavioural evidence and do what you think is evidentially justified, but please do not mistake my objection to your poor manners for some hidden agenda. AGK [•] 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Look, my point was not to prove that you're wrong or made a mistake, far from it. The reason I've bothered with all of this effort is my feeling that a user (who otherwise I don't sympathize and strongly disagree with) has became victim of the malicious activity of another user. If the behavioral and technical evidence supplied by your CU action is compelling enough, then be it (who am I to argue about results which I haven't seen, which have been produced by a code I haven't written?). My point was that the posting of that hogwash about a certain "Prof. Cavalli" without the slightest modification plus lack of discussions form a pattern which point to a user who doesn't speak English at all (or hardly any), which's MUCH more reminiscent of Bizovne than Samofi.
I admit that sometimes I can be quite pushy, but I just feel like punishing somebody based on some vague similarities is a BAD idea (this doesn't apply of course if the evidence's absolutely compelling/solid). Sure, my "hidden" agenda (of spotting Bizovne and blocking him ASAP) is part of the equation too, but I only do this because I think that the evidence I've supplied (the editing habits of Savneli) is compelling enough. -- CoolKoon (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice

Random, but I thought I'd let you know I like the style of your new userboxes. Steven Zhang Talk 23:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :-). AGK [•] 10:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

IP 138.199.79.53

Why have you blocked IP 138.199.79.53? The block notice says that the IP address was being used disruptively but its contributions record lists only three relatively minor edits at Isaac Israëls, mainly supplying an info box. Are info boxes considered disruptive by check users? 193.150.8.130 (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked 138.199.79.52 as an apparent open proxy, but not that IP address. To understand why I would have blocked an anonymising or open proxy, see Wikipedia:Open proxy. To appeal my block, see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing a block. However, if you do not cite an address I did not block, I can't really assist. Regards, AGK [•] 10:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser block

Hello, I noticed you blocked FirmPimpHand (talk · contribs) with a {{Checkuserblock}}. Further editors have made the same sorts of BLP-violating edits to Nadya Suleman, so you may wish to check them as well. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Checkuser obviously Confirmed the latest account, but more importantly IP blocked. Semi-protecting that biography may be sensible, if it is this socker's primary target. AGK [•] 10:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It is semiprotected—the user was autoconfirmed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar ;)

Checkuser Barnstar Hires.png The Checkuser's Barnstar
For helping us out at ACC. ;-) mabdul 15:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Mabdul! I was happy to assist :-). AGK [•] 21:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Who should wrap up such a discussion? sicaspi (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, that discussion is several years old. The thread therefore requires no further action. If you mean who should archive the talk page, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. AGK [•] 20:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I made a mistake. I meant this proposal for deletion, which has not been decided yet. sicaspi (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Suicide of Tyler Clementi" dispute

Please have a look at the Suicide of Tyler Clementi page, a dispute on which is threatening to get out of hand.

My contention: In the bias crimes trial of Dharum Ravi, the court ruled that the trial (and, therefore, the charges/crimes) and Clementi's suicide were not connected (so much so that Clementi's suicide note was not made available to the defense or the public). However, it appears that a political lobby is attempting to use this page in order to FORCE a connection, for their own ends. I have made several (and repeat) edits to remove all irrelevant content, e.g., that referencing Ravi or "LGBT cyberbullying", etc. However, someone keeps replacing the text. I previously attempted to begin a discussion on same on Talk. There were no legitimate takers, only people telling me I was making an illegitimate argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypesmasher (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you ought to use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Regards, AGK [•] 22:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

RfB

Thank you for your very kind words. That was very nice of you to say.

And it's been an interesting experience so far to be sure.

Once it's over (regardless of result), I may come back and ask you for more specific feedback (and may have a few questions) if you're willing : ) - jc37 22:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I don't think we thank enough those Wikipedians who offer to be of service in some capacity or another, but who we determine not to be best suited to the role they choose. I haven't voted in the discussion and don't intend to do so (as an active arbitrator, my own decision is to remain uninvolved in the admin and bureaucrat selection process as much as possible), but I'm sure I will be able to answer any questions you might have once the discussion has concluded. Regards, AGK [•] 22:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
lol, interesting way you put that : )
And I don't disagree. I was saddened to see how the process seemed to hurt User:Durin (and others) in the past. He used to be so active at WT:RFA.
Anyway, thanks and thanks again : ) - jc37 22:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please consider blocking one user, and checkusering them with another.

Hi,

Not taking this to your talk for any particular reason other than you've got CU, therefore any talk page stalkers please feel free to do this to. Trota (talk · contribs · count) needs, in my view, a damn good blocking for putting this back after being told not to spam wikipedia like that - promoting that sort of thing, like pretty much any nutty fake scammy medicine, is revolting, opioid addicts potentially being some of the most vulnerable people in society, especially the ones who would be reading wikipedia (who I will assume to be the thoughtful self medicating type rather than the thuggish thieving type) .

Secondly, Keefsom (talk · contribs · count) may or may not be related to them. Edits on buprenorphine seem like they could have been co-ordinated, but it may be a coincidence. If they are, please consider blocking them too.

Thirdly, I have a question for you about CU on badmachine's talk page.

Cheers,

Egg Centric 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, AGK. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Circular logic

When you stated the badmachine block should be considered as a checkuser block, per Wikipedia:Checkuser#CheckUser_blocks I ceased trying to figure out whether I had an opinion worth contributing and noted on ANI your statement vis-a-vis checkuser, approximately two hours before the discussion closed. Thus to state the fact block "was upheld" on ANI, and therefore further investigation into the possibly of false positives was unwarranted seems a bit circular. Nobody Ent 02:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My Checkuser action in relation to Badmachine is no longer in force. AGK [•] 08:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A correct AC/DS warning issued by a non-admin

Hello Anthony. This recent warning of ARBMAC sanctions by a non-admin caught my attention since the case page is on my watchlist. You had stated in response to a Clarification request that you were concerned about non-admins issuing these warnings. Here's a case where I think it was done correctly. I hope that this particular instance does not cause any alarm. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Ed. My concerns now go a little allayed, but I still think these notifications will be used in future by one faction against another. I suppose that only time will tell whether other non-administrator notifications will be as successful. Regards, AGK [•] 15:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)