Jump to content

User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 64: Line 64:


* Er, there is nothing wrong with an appeal on the same page where the action was taken ([[WP:AE|AE]]), when the community was already informed of it at AN. The community has enacted restrictions at other locations (like the COI noticeboard) as long as they have been notified through WP:AN, and it has reviewed arbitration restrictions at [[WP:AE]] too (like Tznkai's enforcement action on Brews). Yet you've closed it in support of the admin who has been consistently and disruptively advocating against the aggrieved editor since the case was closed. And that too in the name of unnecessary bureaucracy. Jehochman is clearly obsessed with the outcome of the appeal but that's not what is really worrying - my concern is that an editor, any editor, even the worst/best of editors, should be able to make an appeal to the community without difficulty and excess bureaucracy. Neither the drafting arb nor I were hoping for this mentality (be it from Stifle, Jonathon, or even you Anthony) when we were working in the workshop, but that admins can do what they want so long as they have friends in high places suggests exactly why people are not inclined to elect admins these days or why hardly anybody wants to come remotely close to AE outside of special notifications. Foolish is the only word to describe it. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 11:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
* Er, there is nothing wrong with an appeal on the same page where the action was taken ([[WP:AE|AE]]), when the community was already informed of it at AN. The community has enacted restrictions at other locations (like the COI noticeboard) as long as they have been notified through WP:AN, and it has reviewed arbitration restrictions at [[WP:AE]] too (like Tznkai's enforcement action on Brews). Yet you've closed it in support of the admin who has been consistently and disruptively advocating against the aggrieved editor since the case was closed. And that too in the name of unnecessary bureaucracy. Jehochman is clearly obsessed with the outcome of the appeal but that's not what is really worrying - my concern is that an editor, any editor, even the worst/best of editors, should be able to make an appeal to the community without difficulty and excess bureaucracy. Neither the drafting arb nor I were hoping for this mentality (be it from Stifle, Jonathon, or even you Anthony) when we were working in the workshop, but that admins can do what they want so long as they have friends in high places suggests exactly why people are not inclined to elect admins these days or why hardly anybody wants to come remotely close to AE outside of special notifications. Foolish is the only word to describe it. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 11:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
** Brews has made more than his fair share of appeals. Part of the problem with this editor is that they engage community members in endless debates. See [[WP:HEAR]]. You beating the [[WP:DEADHORSE]] is not helping the situation one bit. Go directly to ArbCom with any appeals or questions, please. We've been over the ground before. Rehashing the same issues again, and again, and again does not add value. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


== ''The Wikipedia Signpost'': 9 August 2010 ==
== ''The Wikipedia Signpost'': 9 August 2010 ==

Revision as of 12:36, 11 August 2010

User:AGK/NoticeUser:AGK/NoticeTemplate loop detected: User:AGK

Old messages are at User talk:AGK/Archive.
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is quickest for having pages undeleted.
E-mail me at Special:EmailUser/AGK.
Click here to talk. Talkbacks are fine with me.

Hi AGK

I'd like to take on an open case for Mediation, I am intrested in joining the Mediation Committee and aiding in dispute resolution. On the Nomination Procedure page it stated that taking on an open case would allow Mediators to see if I am a capable candidate. Thank you for your input. Please leave me a talkback on my user talk page. Thank you once again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 01:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FD. Thank you for your interest! We're always looking for new members who are experienced in mediation. I'll open a thread on this on the Committee mailing list and get back to you in about a week. Regards, AGK 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks :D Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion seems to be that you would need far more experience in mediating and dispute resolution before a nomination to the MedCom could be considered. I would recommend involving yourself in some WP:Third opinions and, more importantly, mediating some cases for the WP:Mediation Cabal. Formal mediation is a complicated process and requires great experience, so you'll need to get a good many MedCab cases under your belt before coming back to us I think! AGK 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, will do. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legostar Galactica

Hello.I was wondering why my Article of Legostar Galactica was deleted.It was the first Lego webcomic,yet no one reconizes it.I was trying to make it more known to people.There's a Irregular Webcomic Article,yet none for LG.I am just wondering why it was deleted.I hope you can at least help me.--Wikidude10000 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Header added.] Please see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. Should that not answer your question, I'll provide a fuller response in a few days' time, when I am more available. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy may also be of interest. Regards, AGK 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Assuming that those pages have answered your questions. If they haven't, let me know.) AGK 12:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hall Problem

Hi, no change. Except, I keep getting blocked for 'edit warring'. Please advise. Glkanter (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that this dispute is too long-running to be worked out through such editing processes as WP:BRD, so continuing to make changes to the article, I'm guessing, is unhelpful. So don't do that in future, or you'll probably find yourself blocked again, and for longer. I really don't know what to do about this dispute. I wish I could wave a magic wand that made you all go away and edit other articles and forget that the Monty Hall problem even existed, because I'm guessing the article our readers see won't be any worse off that way, but clearly that's not an option so I regretfully can't advise anything at this point. AGK 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. I've BRDed for nearly 2 years. So much so, that an opposition editor filed an RfC on me. Here's how he starts the complaint:

"Virtually all of Glkanter's edits have been to talk:Monty Hall problem and the related subpage talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments. Rather than edit the article he has engaged in a long-standing campaign on the talk page to "simplify" the article..." [1]

Hmm, less talk, more editing. OK, I can do that. Now, the very same editor has reported me for 'edit warring' at least twice, maybe 3 or 4 times. Ironic, no?

The opposition has BRDed for 7 years. The dispute resolution system is not working here. And while none of the editors has been overtly malicious, I believe some are not editing as per Wikipedia's 'good faith' expectation. And that statement can be documented.

One man's 'edit warring' is another man's 'ownership'. Or 'gamesmanship'.

Editing delayed, is editing denied! Peace. Glkanter (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on David Spector AFE

I don't know whether it is normal for an uninvolved admin to simply post an opinion/suggestion in a pending AFE as a part of the general discussion, rather than in the "result" section. So, I posted this question[2] regarding your comment from yesterday at the David Spector AFE. [3] Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've replied to you there[4]. Regards, AGK 14:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you for the response. Perfectly sensible approach, just wasn't sure what the protocols were on that board. Fladrif (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of Brews_ohare appeal

You have suggested “This thread is not actionable as an appeal and so it would form no part of any complaint you submitted to the Arbitration Committee. You should simply file a new request, using the old statements and such if you like.”

I don't know how to follow your advice, as I do not understand the procedures. Can you tell me where to file and what format to use? Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to have a sanction lifted by the ArbCom are to be filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Instructions for doing so are here, in the red box. If you need more guidance, let me know and I'll do my best to help; or contact another clerk, at WT:AC/C. Regards, AGK 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice leads me to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. The template on that page requests as follows:
A request for amendment of a closed case must clearly state the following:
(a) The name of the case to be amended;
(b) The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title;
(c) For each clause in (b), the desired modification;
Because my appeal doesn't seem to me to be a request for an amendment to the existing sanction Case:Speed of light, which has itself been amended several times as I have summarized in the original appeal, but is instead an appeal of a bad enforcement action by Sandstein that has taken the form of arbitrarily applying a sanction of his own based upon authorization not in fact supplied by Case Speed of light, I do not understand how to fit my appeal of Sandstein's arbitrary action into this template. In particular, how are the above requests of the template (a), (b) and (c) to be filled in? Can you help? Brews ohare (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I started a reply there, but removed it because the thread is closed.  :-) What I was going to say is that I agree all editors have the same inherent worth, but that one must be an administrator to close an WP:AE thread. The board cannot function when any editor can veto the closure of a thread. We don't want to allow that sort of stonewalling. If an editor disrupts an administrative closure, they should be warned, and then blocked if they persist. Jehochman Talk 11:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, there is nothing wrong with an appeal on the same page where the action was taken (AE), when the community was already informed of it at AN. The community has enacted restrictions at other locations (like the COI noticeboard) as long as they have been notified through WP:AN, and it has reviewed arbitration restrictions at WP:AE too (like Tznkai's enforcement action on Brews). Yet you've closed it in support of the admin who has been consistently and disruptively advocating against the aggrieved editor since the case was closed. And that too in the name of unnecessary bureaucracy. Jehochman is clearly obsessed with the outcome of the appeal but that's not what is really worrying - my concern is that an editor, any editor, even the worst/best of editors, should be able to make an appeal to the community without difficulty and excess bureaucracy. Neither the drafting arb nor I were hoping for this mentality (be it from Stifle, Jonathon, or even you Anthony) when we were working in the workshop, but that admins can do what they want so long as they have friends in high places suggests exactly why people are not inclined to elect admins these days or why hardly anybody wants to come remotely close to AE outside of special notifications. Foolish is the only word to describe it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brews has made more than his fair share of appeals. Part of the problem with this editor is that they engage community members in endless debates. See WP:HEAR. You beating the WP:DEADHORSE is not helping the situation one bit. Go directly to ArbCom with any appeals or questions, please. We've been over the ground before. Rehashing the same issues again, and again, and again does not add value. Jehochman Talk 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Archiving of Rejected RFM

Hello AGK. Now that Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gun laws in the United States (by state) has been rejected, will it be archived to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/nn? And if so, when? More generally, are rejected mediation cases automatically archived when they're in Category:Mediation Committee rejected cases, or is there some other mechanism for causing them to be archived? (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater (Talk) 12:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are first automatically moved to WP:RFM#Recently rejected requests by the Committee bot account. Later (some weeks, usually), the content of the rejected request is pasted to the rejected case archive that is active at that point; an index is provided at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archives. The request page is then deleted. In months to come, to find the content of the old Gun laws in the US (by state) request, simply enter "Gun laws in the United States (by state)" into the search box at the archives index and it should pop up. There is no set timescale for this to all happen; I usually move all the rejected to requests to archive and delete the old pages whenever the rejected requests section at RfM becomes too full (and that reminds me, I should get on that some time soon :P). Hope this helps, AGK 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does help, thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis_2

Hello, it appears the Wordsmith time on Wiki will not permit a speedy or thorough Mediation. I'm glad for the process to go forward if there is a way to expedite things. Despite clarifications that the ArbCom may not be appropriate, I believe their decision on the inappropriate use of the Jasen ref might be required to get things corrected. Thanks for your time. - RoyBoy 00:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into whether a reassignment is necessary and feasible and get back to you soon. Regards, AGK 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old messages are at User talk:AGK/Archive.
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is quickest for having pages undeleted.
E-mail me at Special:EmailUser/AGK.
Click here to talk. Talkbacks are fine with me.

Hi AGK

I'd like to take on an open case for Mediation, I am intrested in joining the Mediation Committee and aiding in dispute resolution. On the Nomination Procedure page it stated that taking on an open case would allow Mediators to see if I am a capable candidate. Thank you for your input. Please leave me a talkback on my user talk page. Thank you once again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 01:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FD. Thank you for your interest! We're always looking for new members who are experienced in mediation. I'll open a thread on this on the Committee mailing list and get back to you in about a week. Regards, AGK 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks :D Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion seems to be that you would need far more experience in mediating and dispute resolution before a nomination to the MedCom could be considered. I would recommend involving yourself in some WP:Third opinions and, more importantly, mediating some cases for the WP:Mediation Cabal. Formal mediation is a complicated process and requires great experience, so you'll need to get a good many MedCab cases under your belt before coming back to us I think! AGK 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, will do. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legostar Galactica

Hello.I was wondering why my Article of Legostar Galactica was deleted.It was the first Lego webcomic,yet no one reconizes it.I was trying to make it more known to people.There's a Irregular Webcomic Article,yet none for LG.I am just wondering why it was deleted.I hope you can at least help me.--Wikidude10000 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Header added.] Please see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. Should that not answer your question, I'll provide a fuller response in a few days' time, when I am more available. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy may also be of interest. Regards, AGK 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Assuming that those pages have answered your questions. If they haven't, let me know.) AGK 12:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hall Problem

Hi, no change. Except, I keep getting blocked for 'edit warring'. Please advise. Glkanter (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that this dispute is too long-running to be worked out through such editing processes as WP:BRD, so continuing to make changes to the article, I'm guessing, is unhelpful. So don't do that in future, or you'll probably find yourself blocked again, and for longer. I really don't know what to do about this dispute. I wish I could wave a magic wand that made you all go away and edit other articles and forget that the Monty Hall problem even existed, because I'm guessing the article our readers see won't be any worse off that way, but clearly that's not an option so I regretfully can't advise anything at this point. AGK 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. I've BRDed for nearly 2 years. So much so, that an opposition editor filed an RfC on me. Here's how he starts the complaint:

"Virtually all of Glkanter's edits have been to talk:Monty Hall problem and the related subpage talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments. Rather than edit the article he has engaged in a long-standing campaign on the talk page to "simplify" the article..." [7]

Hmm, less talk, more editing. OK, I can do that. Now, the very same editor has reported me for 'edit warring' at least twice, maybe 3 or 4 times. Ironic, no?

The opposition has BRDed for 7 years. The dispute resolution system is not working here. And while none of the editors has been overtly malicious, I believe some are not editing as per Wikipedia's 'good faith' expectation. And that statement can be documented.

One man's 'edit warring' is another man's 'ownership'. Or 'gamesmanship'.

Editing delayed, is editing denied! Peace. Glkanter (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on David Spector AFE

I don't know whether it is normal for an uninvolved admin to simply post an opinion/suggestion in a pending AFE as a part of the general discussion, rather than in the "result" section. So, I posted this question[8] regarding your comment from yesterday at the David Spector AFE. [9] Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've replied to you there[10]. Regards, AGK 14:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you for the response. Perfectly sensible approach, just wasn't sure what the protocols were on that board. Fladrif (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of Brews_ohare appeal

You have suggested “This thread is not actionable as an appeal and so it would form no part of any complaint you submitted to the Arbitration Committee. You should simply file a new request, using the old statements and such if you like.”

I don't know how to follow your advice, as I do not understand the procedures. Can you tell me where to file and what format to use? Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to have a sanction lifted by the ArbCom are to be filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Instructions for doing so are here, in the red box. If you need more guidance, let me know and I'll do my best to help; or contact another clerk, at WT:AC/C. Regards, AGK 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice leads me to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. The template on that page requests as follows:
A request for amendment of a closed case must clearly state the following:
(a) The name of the case to be amended;
(b) The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title;
(c) For each clause in (b), the desired modification;
Because my appeal doesn't seem to me to be a request for an amendment to the existing sanction Case:Speed of light, which has itself been amended several times as I have summarized in the original appeal, but is instead an appeal of a bad enforcement action by Sandstein that has taken the form of arbitrarily applying a sanction of his own based upon authorization not in fact supplied by Case Speed of light, I do not understand how to fit my appeal of Sandstein's arbitrary action into this template. In particular, how are the above requests of the template (a), (b) and (c) to be filled in? Can you help? Brews ohare (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I started a reply there, but removed it because the thread is closed.  :-) What I was going to say is that I agree all editors have the same inherent worth, but that one must be an administrator to close an WP:AE thread. The board cannot function when any editor can veto the closure of a thread. We don't want to allow that sort of stonewalling. If an editor disrupts an administrative closure, they should be warned, and then blocked if they persist. Jehochman Talk 11:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, there is nothing wrong with an appeal on the same page where the action was taken (AE), when the community was already informed of it at AN. The community has enacted restrictions at other locations (like the COI noticeboard) as long as they have been notified through WP:AN, and it has reviewed arbitration restrictions at WP:AE too (like Tznkai's enforcement action on Brews). Yet you've closed it in support of the admin who has been consistently and disruptively advocating against the aggrieved editor since the case was closed. And that too in the name of unnecessary bureaucracy. Jehochman is clearly obsessed with the outcome of the appeal but that's not what is really worrying - my concern is that an editor, any editor, even the worst/best of editors, should be able to make an appeal to the community without difficulty and excess bureaucracy. Neither the drafting arb nor I were hoping for this mentality (be it from Stifle, Jonathon, or even you Anthony) when we were working in the workshop, but that admins can do what they want so long as they have friends in high places suggests exactly why people are not inclined to elect admins these days or why hardly anybody wants to come remotely close to AE outside of special notifications. Foolish is the only word to describe it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brews has made more than his fair share of appeals. Part of the problem with this editor is that they engage community members in endless debates. See WP:HEAR. You beating the WP:DEADHORSE is not helping the situation one bit. Go directly to ArbCom with any appeals or questions, please. We've been over the ground before. Rehashing the same issues again, and again, and again does not add value. Jehochman Talk 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Archiving of Rejected RFM

Hello AGK. Now that Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gun laws in the United States (by state) has been rejected, will it be archived to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/nn? And if so, when? More generally, are rejected mediation cases automatically archived when they're in Category:Mediation Committee rejected cases, or is there some other mechanism for causing them to be archived? (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater (Talk) 12:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are first automatically moved to WP:RFM#Recently rejected requests by the Committee bot account. Later (some weeks, usually), the content of the rejected request is pasted to the rejected case archive that is active at that point; an index is provided at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archives. The request page is then deleted. In months to come, to find the content of the old Gun laws in the US (by state) request, simply enter "Gun laws in the United States (by state)" into the search box at the archives index and it should pop up. There is no set timescale for this to all happen; I usually move all the rejected to requests to archive and delete the old pages whenever the rejected requests section at RfM becomes too full (and that reminds me, I should get on that some time soon :P). Hope this helps, AGK 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does help, thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis_2

Hello, it appears the Wordsmith time on Wiki will not permit a speedy or thorough Mediation. I'm glad for the process to go forward if there is a way to expedite things. Despite clarifications that the ArbCom may not be appropriate, I believe their decision on the inappropriate use of the Jasen ref might be required to get things corrected. Thanks for your time. - RoyBoy 00:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into whether a reassignment is necessary and feasible and get back to you soon. Regards, AGK 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcticocean&oldid=378353215"