User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:27, 1 June 2011

Tools

Admin statistics
Action	Count
Edits	43925
Edits+Deleted	54362
Pages deleted	3031
Revisions deleted	71
Logs/Events deleted	2
Pages restored	270
Pages protected	4173
Pages unprotected	103
Protections modified	3658
Users blocked	2348
Users reblocked	155
Users unblocked	158
User rights modified	119
Users created	59
Abuse filters modified	89
Mass messages sent	4

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
The Mediation Committee has been disbanded as a result of this discussion.
Other dispute resolution processes should be used for content issues.

Shortcuts

The Mediation Committee was a panel of editors who resolved content disputes on Wikipedia articles by providing formal mediation. The Mediation Committee was established with the Arbitration Committee in 2003 by Jimmy Wales and was the last stage of content dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. Mediation was entered into voluntarily by the parties to the dispute and did not result in binding resolutions. The Mediation Committee policy documented how the Mediation Committee, its mediators, and the formal mediation process operated. This policy was maintained by the Committee and was considered an authoritative codification of how Committee matters should be conducted.

After a substantial period of inactivity, the Mediation Committee was shut down by community consensus on 12 November 2018.

Hi there

Hey Anthony, it's been a long time. How have you been? I'm returning to active editing nowadays :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve! I'm very glad to see that you've returned. I had actually noticed an edit by you a couple of weeks back, but weren't sure if you were returning "full-time". Are you enjoying your return? AGK [•] 10:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pretty good, I now have a little month old daughter, and a new office job that gives me about 2-3hrs free time in an 8 hour day, so I have more free time to edit. That said, I've come back, and a lot has changed (seriously what did they do with all the edit buttons at the top of the edit window? I'm a bit lost in terms of what to do on wiki again. Any ideas? You remember what I used to like doing...well, it hasn't changed, but some stuff I used to do doesn't exist nowadays, or has changed. Thoughts? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the wean! The aimlessness you feel on Wikipedia is common in editors who return after many months in retirement, so I wouldn't fret. I remember that you were quite active at the Mediation Cabal, and that your mediation cases were often successful. Perhaps you could return there. You also created many articles related to 24 (TV series), so perhaps you could return to that, or become an editor or copy-editor for a WikiProject of some other interest of yours. As a matter of experience, editors thrive when they find a niche, so if you have lost yours, the problem might simply be that you haven't found another. AGK [•] 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on 24 (TV series) for the past few days, but have somewhat hit the wall in parts in terms of how to improve it from where it is to could become. In terms of MedCab, I'd love to take on a case again, but there a lack of anything to mediate at present, which is quite a shame. Any suggestions on what I could do in DR, apart from third opinions, which I have already worked on a few, but disputes are few and far between. Getting a bit stuck with stuff to do, to be honest. Just fyi, I was wondering when you'd be made chair of MedCom. It's about time. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of cases at MedCab is not surprising; things are quiet on the DR front generally, including at MedCab. You could always chime in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dispute resolution, as you've got experience that could lead to useful insight. And maybe, if that RFC solves some of the problems that plague our DR system, there might be plenty more cases to take on in future :). Oddly enough, I was appointed the Chair of MedCom one year and one month today :). AGK [•] 22:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that. I think I might leave my comments there, as I have noticed of late the disputes are more scattered across a larger number of pages. And personally, I felt 3O, MedCab and MedCom for content disputes worked fine. I will leave my opinion there. On another note, I've finally got my head around what I need to do around here. Having it on paper definitely helps :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think this case would be too hard for me? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally left my comments at RFC/DR, if you're interested. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could just be bold and write up a new page, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution notice board as a proposed page? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news

In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news

WikiProject report: The Royal Railway

Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism

Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired

Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some assistance, please.

Would you be so kind as to inform editor Tugrulirmak[1] of the restrictions of AA and AA2? Judging from his hasty move of Van Resistance to "Van Revolt",[2] I find it hard to believe this is a "new" user, unfamiliar with policy here on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AGK [•] 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is not finished

You have done a big mistake.

I would like to appeal, and want you to provide diffs and explain why I violated anything in those diffs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in my closure statement that I was sanctioning you based on the evidence presented by the filing party, User:Biosketch. Do you want me to copy over the diffs over from the AE request? One such diff that led me to decide in favour of the request for enforcement was your 17 May 2011 edit, in which you commented "This entire country is disputed", and added the associated category, to the Israel article. Such an edit is not a reasonable application of WP:BOLD or WP:BRD, and further is indicative of a battlefield mentality. In the AE discussion, you comment that "All things Biosketch brought up [in this AE request have] already been replied to above, and he is now just repeating his own unfounded and baseless accusations". You did not. Furthermore, when all the edits cited in the AE thread are considered together, the inevitable conclusion is that you are not collaborative enough or adequately mindful of our basic content policies to be a positive influence on this topic area. Other editors of this topic area are in the same position as you, and I regret that more enforcement requests are not being filed now, when we seem to finally be willing to hand out topic bans. AGK [•] 11:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not ever again come onto my talk page and demand that I "answer you when you talk to me". I have removed that particular message, and you will not re-add it. I am a volunteer, and so is every other administrator, and not one of us is obligated to give you even a second of our day more than we want to. Frankly, it disgusts me that you'd talk to a peer in that way. AGK [•] 11:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want you to bring all those exact diffs and I want you to explain with your own words what was wrong with all those specific edits I made.

You have here only provided one diff and instance, the one at the Israel article. At that article I did one content edit, (not a revert) adding a category, User:Gilabarand (now indeffed) removed it without saying anything in the edit summary, the same category was then reinstated by another user. I opened discussion at the talkpage and provided reliable sources showing it was backed up and correct, several other editors supported the edit, several others did not. What part of this is not reasonable editing? What part of this is "battlefield mentality"?

I believe that I did reply to all things Biosketch brought up, if it was something missing, why didn't you just say so and I could have replied to what you was wondering over? What did I not reply to?

You say: "Furthermore, when all the edits cited in the AE thread are considered together, the inevitable conclusion is that you are not collaborative enough or adequately mindful of our basic content policies to be a positive influence on this topic area.", this is an easy reply that you can say to justify any action you make without really explaining your actions or what was wrong with my edits. Explain with your own words what was wrong with all those specific edits I made. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is not finished. Please reply. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply, but you will allow me a few days, if you please, to draft a satisfactory response, because an explanation of regular length will, clearly, not satisfy you. Regards, AGK [•] 20:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What was this? Whatever it was, it doesn't seem appropriate at all. Was there some sort of consensus discussion that took place that approved this action on your part? That doesn't seem rather likely, since it comes exactly six months after the time served. Silverseren^C 21:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking, or did you not see the discussion on my talk page (now archived) between Jehochman and I about this very topic? AGK [•] 21:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. And Beeblebrox said in there that he mentioned for this to be done in order to show that the six months is up, so people shouldn't be bringing that up anymore. That's all and good, except that the comment, "The two preceding blocks were subsequently disputed, and have the opposition of at least this administrator." does not address this issue at all. The two blocks were certainly not erroneous in the slightest, it's just that their time frame is up. That sort of note in the block log is extremely disingenuous. Silverseren^C 22:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bans were placed on December 27. AGK made a correction block on December 25, which makes it to be a little bit less than 5 months (not "exactly six months") after the bans were imposed.

I just emailed to Beeblebrox and asked him to post here the exact language he used in his response to my inquire. BTW I did not address my initial inquire to Beeblebrox. I addressed it to all oversighters. Beeblebrox was the one who responded to it.

Then AGK could add here the exact language I used in my communication with him.

Maybe it was me who misrepresented Beeblebrox's response in my communications with AGK. Of course I did not do it in purpose, but still, if I did misrepresent it, I should be the one to be punished for this, not AGK.

AGK has done nothing wrong, and I wish I have never asked him to do it in the first place.

In a meantime while we are waiting for the responses, may I please kindly ask you,Silver seren, to redact your language? Right now you have not enough information to make such accusations. Thank you for your consideration.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 : Are you joking, or did you not see the discussion on my talk page (now archived) between Jehochman and I about this very topic? [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 21:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 ::No, I didn't. And Beeblebrox said in there that he mentioned for this to be done in order to show that the six months is up, so people shouldn't be bringing that up anymore. That's all and good, except that the comment, "The two preceding blocks were subsequently disputed, and have the opposition of at least this administrator." does not address this issue at all. The two blocks were certainly not erroneous in the slightest, it's just that their time frame is up. That sort of note in the block log is extremely disingenuous. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 22:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
+:::My bans were placed on December 27. AGK made a correction block on December 25, which makes it to be a little bit less than 5 months (not "exactly six months") after the bans were imposed.
+:::I just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=432081277 emailed] to Beeblebrox and asked him to post here the exact language he used in his response to my inquire. BTW I did not address my initial inquire to Beeblebrox. I addressed it to all oversighters. Beeblebrox was the one who responded to it.
+:::Then AGK could add here the exact language I used in my communication with him.
+:::Maybe it was me who misrepresented Beeblebrox's response in my communications with AGK. Of course I did not do it in purpose, but still, if I did misrepresent it, I should be the one to be punished for this, not AGK.
+:::AGK has done nothing wrong, and I wish I have never asked him to do it in the first place.
+:::In a meantime while we are waiting for the responses, may I please kindly ask you,Silver seren, to redact your language? Right now you have not enough information to make such accusations. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)