User talk:Arcticocean

I need you to please recover artice:Pbx software and send a copy to me thanksUser:AGK/Header If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel, or personal information, and has not been deleted as a suspected biographies of living persons violation, I will userfy the article for you.

Note that using the text to recreate any deleted article may automatically qualify them for speedy deletion, and copies of previously deleted content that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion because Wikipedia is not a free web host. We have a list of alternative sites which may be used to host your content.

== Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49

Howdy! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 22:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Thank you for the delivery, WODUP. Regards, Anthøny 07:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not The Wikipedia Weekly Episode 16

Hey there Arcticocean! Not The Wikipedia Weekly Episode 16 is now available. Listen to it on the episode's page. The cast includes a discussion on Banned users, blocked users, policies and processes and also a specific discussion about, and with, User:Moulton.

From the Not The Wikipedia Weekly team, Addbot (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Thanks very much; I shall have a listen shortly. Regards, Anthøny 07:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Arcticocean, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Anthøny 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation tips

I see that you are a mediator.

Over the last 2-3 days, I've added some very neutrally, neither pro- or anti- information about Barack Obama. Looking at the talk page, it can get very heated there. What is the secret to success in avoiding getting mud slung at me?

For example, even adding his mother's name is met with resistance. I put his mother's full legal name (as Obama was born to ...mother's name). What is the fuss? Why refuse to print her full name? I feel an edit war/edit attack is waiting to happen, even over very factual stuff. Why the fuss over such simple matter; you can image how more complex matter will result in even more fuss.

Advice on calming things down but still have the best edits appear? This is more preventative advice sought rather than seeking you out as a mediator. DianeFinn (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My overriding instinct is to say that the three pillars involved in editing harmoniously are: communicating well; knowing when to disengage and seek administrator assistance; and seeing it from the "other side". Allow me to elaborate, with some general advice:

"seeing it from the 'other side'": Whilst one shouldn't be overly apologetic (otherwise, we'd never get anything done), it is important to see things from the side of the disagreeing parties. Off-wiki feelings very often spill over onto the project, and that includes biases: in the Barack Obama example to which you have an involvement, editors who revert war may well be republican activists, for example. We are all human, and empathising with those that hold alternative schools of thought to yourself is important: try and reason, rather than biting back, when your edits get a hostile reception.

"knowing when to disengage and seek administrator assistance": Leading on, and exploring further angles, hostile contribution environments (from the sounds of your comments, eg. Barack Obama, yet again) can get to an unacceptable points. Whilst heated discussions cannot always be avoided, if edit warring, incivilities, and personal attacks are becoming the norm, and your edits are being repeatedly rejected and reverted with no apparent reason and without discussion, seeking administrator intervention is the way to go. File a report at the edit warring noticeboard if an editor is reverting contributions to articles without cause or discussion; turn to wikiquette alerts if you have problems with an editor who is repeatedly incivil. Ensure you have read, in full, the dispute resolution Wikipedia policy.

"communicating well": review this policy subsection, which is an excellent guide to discussing issues with other Wikipedia editors. Read Wikipedia:Negotiation for information on negotiating. Ensure you fully discuss anything that displeases you, but remain civil when doing so; when authoring a comment or a reply (on a user's talk page, on an article talk page, or elsewhere), remember (as I mentioned above) to see the other side, and when posting, ask yourself "will this comment improve the article related, and Wikipedia?". Try and communicate well with other parties, keeping the improvement of the project and full expression of your points at the core of your focus.

That's my general advice to avoiding conflict. You mentioned that you are having some troubles with editors disputing over whether the Barack Obama article should include the subject's mother's name. That's not something I will get involved in, as it's up to the article contributors to reach a consensus on the matter. Once again, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (and, in particular, #Ask for a third opinion, #Request a comment, and #Informal mediation) provides further information on whether you can take this content dispute for resolution. If all the parties engage in dispute resolution with an open mind, things will be a hundred times easier. Hopefully, at least. ;)

In summary, make your edits accepted by taking time out after making them to approach the parties that oppose the changes, requesting that discussion be undertaken (and, failing that, dispute resolution) between you all. Take time to consensus-build, and you will come out fine.

I hope this advice goes a little way to aiding you; best of luck, and have fun editing (it needn't all be serious!)

Anthøny 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions&action=history

What happened there? -- Cat ^chi? 18:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The requests for clarifications and requests for prior case amendment fork was originally intended to be an experimental movement, and no promise was made of it being permanent. Clarifications were later re-added to requests for arbitration, and are now located at WP:RFAC. The general complaint at the time of the re-merger (which took place in late April) was, the arbitrators prefer all "requests for the committee to consider *something*", something being replaceable by requests to arbitrate a dispute, requests to clarify an old case, requests to change an old case, et cetera.

The response here should provide further information.

Anthøny 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what you need

You're under stressful times here, and you're getting nowhere fast. I think, however, the main problem is you're approaching things from the wrong angle, and with the wrong attitude. What is it that you need done? I will undertake my best attempts to help, so long as what you need is fair and warranted.

Anthøny 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a few minor suggestions (creation of a redirect, minor restructuring of rfar) and I have been almost crucified for it. I do not know. I do need the redirect to more easily link to the case.

• As it stands, I probably will be forced to link to the Davenbelle for the next 47 years if my past 3 years is any indication. I wil hand feed the community more evidence and links to past cases (which are less than fun to type). I do not expect this dispute to be resolved for decades. If I turn out to be wrong... Well I suppose that is a good thing.
• I also need to be able to follow discussions on ArbCom. I spend a good deal of my time editing from a shared GPRS connection which has a speed close to a shared 56k (its slightly less). It's sluggish as is. As much as I find arbcom to be completely useless when dealing with disputes, the incompetent wikipedia will not move a yoctometer to help me and delegate the dispute to arbcom like it did the past 3 years.

I intend to file an rfar case on Jack Merridew. I know there is a clarification but the overly complex long term nature of the case that seems to be a better way to address the problem. You being a clerk can probably make the transition better than I. Please make this transition. A clarification has a very high chance of disappearing for inactivity per my past experience.

I seemingly need to demonstrate mediation (a field of science I have no interest to) in order to abolish an arbcom remedy. Since arbcom has shown complete apathy on the matter, I have to do this all by my self. Fun thing is I am only interested in the removal of this non-expiring remedy. Currently the remedy only serves to help trolls. I am open to suggestions on getting this remedy off my back.

-- Cat ^chi? 12:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures

Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)