User talk:Arcticocean

Armenia-Turkey Relations

I am glad someone like yourself is paying attention to this article. It has been a playground, like many other articles on similar topics, of pov and ethnic propaganda editing. Modest attempts I had made to inject some balance have been viciously attacked. My reverts have been almost solely to undo vandalism and pov distortions of the content I had contributed. I have always provided references and included explanations, but that hardly slows down dedicated pov editors as you may have noticed by now. I am open to suggestions so as to filter my inputs through an objective party and stop endless and unproductive editing. Please track my inputs and their fate in this article--Murat (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with reverting edits that constitute a "POV distortion" is that it is difficult to have such an edit treated as vandalism. This is because administrators are not subject experts, and so they have a hard time ascertaining what is a minor change and what is a deliberate attempt to skew the point of view of an article. Where article quality is being affected because of a disagreement between editors over aspects of content (including questions of whether a given sentence is not of a neutral point of view), you should take it to discussion—and have an administrator protect the article, if necessary, by contacting one (eg myself) directly, or by filling a request at page protection requests. Take care when editing this subject area to: (1) favour discussion over reversion when faced with an edit you disagree with; and (2) involve an administrator if an editor is being acutely unhelpful and unwilling to discuss disputed changes. If you honour both parts of this advice, then I don't think any further action (such as filtering your contributions through a third party) will be necessary. Staying on the right side of Wikipedia policy is really not as difficult as most people would think. AGK 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed again the recent unwarranted and wholesale reverts in this article by Gazifikator and now DBaba. Especially Gazifikator has been rather rude and destructive in his edit warring. Possibly the same people, or team members taking turns to avoid restrictions. The edits in their current state represent untruths, matrial mistakes and errors, not distortions as I have explained in discussion, again. Let me know how to handle or deal with this. I do not want to be baited to another undo. Thanks.--Murat (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban

I thought the thing was over and I just finished reading the discussion. The others were right of course, I was aware of the sanction and by participating in an Arb-Com thingy I demonstrated that I was. So since your original statement said that you thought I merited the specific topic ban that you recently meted, and were constrained only by the technicality, your original statement would naturally stand. I would have said that earlier if I had seen it.

Anyway, there is plenty to edit at the fringes, not specifically in the I-P area. I really don't think it a fair decision mostly for the reasons that I pointed out in my defense, but I of course accept it. I appreciate and thank you that you tried to argue for 1RR. But of course that would have been against your better judgment. I also noticed that you were under an incredible amount of pressure from Nableezy's "supporters". I did warn you that he was "well-liked" by both sides, and intelligent as well.

I believed, and still believe, that the "other side" played (and continues to play & 'will' continue to play) tag team, and that they come to each others' defense, not only on these arbitration matters, but on AfD boards, 3RR boards, ANI, and other boards as well as in specific articles as needed. All that is required is having one player more than the other side to make sure that one side's revert or POV "sticks." And they control the whole I-P area by sheer virtue of numbers and tenacity, all the while complaining that they have a disadvantage in numbers, due to the fact that the whole of the Israeli Mossad spends most of its time here at WP. In fact, there are many, many more editors editing in the IP area or enforcing WP rules in the area that are sympathetic to the anti-Israel "narrative" than those that are sympathetic to the "Israeli narrative". It is the dominant viewpoint taught in universities by professors who use their credentials to push their political beliefs in the classroom. WP doesn't really have an answer to this either. This means it will be especially hard to have any balanced articles in the area at all, and why the conflict can never be fairly resolved. I wish I could implement some ideas. WP needs some new ideas in this area. Best wishes, Stellarkid (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to find the refs re tags on the Irwin Cotler page. Cotler is a Jewish Canadian international Jurist who has had some legal dealings with both Israelis and Palestinians. I don't believe he is a controversial person. Just want to fix the cites. I hate to see those citation needed tags. Would this be violating my topic ban? Stellarkid (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would strong discourage you from editing anything which relates to Israel or to Palestine. Doing so would take you too close to your topic ban for comfort. But in this case, as the article does not directly relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I think you are safe to edit it. Regards, AGK 12:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Feedback and quick question

I am disappointed since it looks like the squeaky wheel got the grease here. Since I would have disagreed with the ban from the beginning (it appears to be more punitive than preventative) and am not in your shoes, this is is meant only as feedback and not as some sort of appeal. You've had a lot to read over so while other admins looked to just be sick of it it is appreciated that you did put forth the effort.

I do agree that editors need to work towards consensus and think your lock wasn't a bad idea. No one has put the effort in on that talk page so I was considering taking your advice and opening up mediation on the "massacre" aspect. Assistance on a yes or no or compromise in any direction is obviously needed. I wasn't sure if "formal" or "informal" was the way to go so it would be great if you had any suggestions on the appropriate route to take.Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your feedback. I think informal mediation (at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) would be a good source of first instance dispute resolution. But the matter certainly seems to be contested enough to warrant formal mediation (by the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee), so I guess either choice would be fine. By the by: I'm very pleased to see that somebody is trying to push towards content dispute resolution. That this is happening gives me a glimmer of hope that things may be moving towards a more positive direction. Good luck with the mediation. Best, AGK 10:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• No worries on the delayed response. I assume all of us on that page believe we are right but it needs to get settled one way or the other.Cptnono (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Incredible

It's inconceivable to me that Stellarkid gets a two month topic ban while Mr Unsigned Anon's egregious conduct merits only a one week block. In addition to being a notorious edit warrior, he's an admitted socker and has hurled numerous insults and vulgarities at four editors. Can you please explain why Stellar is treated so harshly while Mr Unsigned Anon gets off with a slap on the wrist. I'll further note that not one editor came to Mr Unsigned Anon's defense. On the contrary, all those who voiced their opinion on MUA stated unequivocally that MUA was disruptive. Conversely, many editors came to Stellar's defense. Something is seriously wrong here. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• It was not I who actioned the AE complaint concerning Mr Unsigned Anon (MUA). I have little control over how lenient or severe my fellow administrators are when approaching a case. I would say only that Stellarkid was not treated harshly but fairly (in the context of the extent of his recent misconduct). Complaints about the leniency of the result of another thread need to go in the first instance to the administrator who closed it. Only where discussions with him are unsatisfactory, could you then ask another sysop (such as me) to consider adjusting the outcome.

  I do think the sanction applied to MUA was too lenient. But be aware that Tznkai is probably more lenient generally than I am, where highly contested subject areas are concerned. I don't like giving him grief for his actions, because I know that he prefers to work in a different way from I (and also because I happen to like him as a person—and nobody enjoys annoying their friends). Sorry to pass the buck, but you really need to first take your complaint to here. AGK 00:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Appreciate your response however, the AE claim that I filed against MUA seems to have disappeared from the AE boards. Can you please tell me where I can find it and why it was omitted or deleted. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind. The AE claim has since re-appeared and I have no explanation for its disappearance--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

The next time you go to someone's talk page, acting as a clerk, please identify yourself as a clerk. Until I saw the RFAR page today, where you commented in the clerk's section, I had no idea you weren't just someone commenting on my talk page. It isn't easy to figure out that you're a clerk by going to your user page. Please consider stating it clearly there, as well. Sorry about the length of my comments at the RFAR page. I think I fixed that with a summary statement and the collapse feature. JohnWBarber (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied at John's talk page. AGK 21:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost, 16 Nov 2009

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins

• Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing

• News and notes: Kiswahili contest, new advisory board members, Foundation-l and more

• In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more

• Sister projects: Wiktionary interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Niles and Sutherland Report

Minor edits and contributions to this page have been under attack by subjective editors who may be known to you by now. Kansas Bear has been repatedly reverting paragraphs, removing wholesale without any attempt to improve or remedy. His rude comments in the discussion page speaks for itself. I have incorporated a third and more detailed referenced version of the small paragraph. I expect it to be removed again soon. I would like you to bring an end to this blatant edit warring. Thanks.--Murat (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• This matter should go to the administrator's board for incidents, for a couple of reasons (which I won't bore you with). Would you like to open the thread, or would you prefer that I do so? AGK 10:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already brought this matter to another Admin's attention. The paragraph, Murat's own personal opinion(OR), is not supported by the references he has cited. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement

Hi AGK, I'm pleased to see your nomination.

I'm listed as an election coordinator. Sorry to be a bore, but ... your statement counts to 418 words when the display is pasted into Word. Even without the bullet at the top, which I think should count, it's 410 words.

Would you mind trimming? Tony (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, I didn't realise it had nudged over the word limit. My original statement was something like ten under, but I've made a couple of additions since then, so I guess they brought me over to the wrong side of the line. I'd like, if that's okay with you, to not count the bullet at the top, as that is in effect a link to another statement (as provided for in the election instructions page). At least ten words will be chopped off as soon as I can, though; I promise. Is not counting the bullet okay with you? Regards, AGK 10:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Trimmed as promised. AGK 22:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AGK. To respond to your point about the ArbCom versus GovCom issue:

But it's important to distinguish between government and its role as an influential "executive committee" (for want of a better description). Would you say that the committee is to some degree a kind of steering committee, simply by virtue of its high exposure across the project and of its not-negligible capacity to influence the workings of the encyclopedia? I've always held such a view, even if I think that it probably shouldn't be (project governance should be strictly within the remit of our community), but I'm interested in yours.

The current constitution (i.e., policy page) is full of loopholes, for want of a better term, that do indeed allow the Committee to stray far beyond the role of a magistracy. I've pointed out elsewhere that these loopholes have been closed off in the drafts of the updated policy; please see John V's confirmation of this intention further down in that link-targeted section. (I believe the fourth draft will be the subject of further community and Committee input early next year—it's been hanging around for a long time.)

The debacle of the Advisory Committee, whatever it was called, showed just what a thorny issue it can be when WP's rickety, muddling, conservative system of community consensus is threatened. As soon as a body with power strays into policy—as opposed to super-admin duties, i.e., being the last port of call for previously insoluble behavioural disputes—there will be squawking and moaning: people feel threatened by the potential for encroaching on their group development of policy. It's quite enough that Mr Wales has had such power, but as he is only too ready to accept, that is waning as the project evolves, for the very reason the Advisory Committee went down in flames.

ArbCom seems to have realised the wisdom of removing the fuzziness that allowed it to move beyond the role of a magistracy. I think John V has now acknowledged the difficulties in his drafting of principles in the Dates Case that, for example, purported to establish the status of developers and to rule on what is binding and what is not in the style guides. Those principles were not, ultimately, approved by the Committee, and I suspect John would take a different approach nowadays. Bring on the new draft, I say.

What say you?

Concerning your platform, I noticed this: "If ... an editor's conduct was problematic ..., I would sanction that editor in a manner that neutralised their disruptive additions." I suppose I was disappointed that you appear to take such a hard line on protecting the project from damage. This line would not make it any easier to distinguish between punitive and preventative measures; and defining "those who disrupt" is a moving target, I think. When strong belief (even passion) for a position results in disruption, as in so many cases that end up at ArbCom, good editors can easily fall into that category. Then I saw the last point, "Leniency". I still don't know whether you'd be a hanging judge. Tony (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The committee's role as a steering body is more in an advisory capacity than in a legislative one, I think. When the committee "asks" (read: implores) the community to consider undertaking serious and focussed discussions, and so come to a consensus, on a given matter, I think that carries a lot of weight. When the committee tries to fix the given matter by dictum, it fails miserably, simply because people don't like it doing so.

On your points about the draft updated arbitration policy, I would broadly agree with you that it is urgently needed in part to tighten up a great many loopholes or ambiguities in its prose. If I am to serve on the committee next year, the arbitration policy would be something I would push to have implemented.

I think you misunderstood my platform. When I say "neutralise" disruptive conduct, I mean that I would levy a sanction that eliminates it. That is actually the essence of a preventative measure. As a rule, I object to punitive sanctions. So to combine both points: I would be lenient insofar as I could be whilst still neutralising whatever disruptive conduct there is. In practice, this just means that I would not support any measure that I think would still leave the project open to disruption; and would conversely not support any measure that closes the project off to disruption when a less severe but still as effective measure is an option.

As for hanging judge: simply know that I am against site bans except as an option of last resort. This applies even moreso for site bans of an indefinite or considerable length. AGK 13:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Thanks for your responses. [I'm appalled that Manning has left.] Tony (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Twelve questions

Really, I only mean it to be three; the reason I ask several subquestions under each question is just to give some ideas of the kinds of things I hope to learn. Basically a way of my being specific. Whether that still counts as twelve or three I guess you can decide. It's just me trying to brain-pick as best I can. Hope I won't cause you too much pain through the questions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• When I submitted my candidacy, I was aware that I would probably have to spend many tens of hours answering questions. So please don't worry about it. Note that I aim to have responded to your questions within a couple of days. Regards, AGK 17:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that candidates are not obliged to answer mass individual questions that are not individualised. That much is clear from the election talk page. Strategically, rationing responses may make it easier to judge a candidate, but that is a personal hunch. Tony (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I could permit myself to leave a question unanswered. :-) AGK 13:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hello, I have query regrading developments surrounding WP:EEML. I was sorting archives and I noticed that your name is mentioned several times, one of the EEML members noted that you are generally sympathetic towards them, and suggested to send e-mails to you in regards to their opponents. Could you please indicate how much mails did you received form members of this group. Please note, that I am not questioning your past decisions at this point. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which archives were you sorting: those of on-wiki discussion pages or those of the "secret" mailing list that is the subject of the case itself? Recently, I have received e-mail from only one person who was active on the mailing list; there were several of these e-mails, but certainly no more than ten. The e-mails were not controversial in nature, but rather simply asked for advice and guidance on matters relating to the mailing list case. (Note that I am not disclosing who this member is.) If you are asking how many e-mails I have ever received from persons who were active on the mailing list, then I am unsure. I would refute the claim that I am sympathetic to any group of editors, principally because I have not been especially active in this subject area as an administrator (and have not been active at all as an editor). Regards, AGK 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I referring to the so called "secret" mailing list. And yes, I am asking number of e-mails, received from those individuals in general. Please note, that I am not interested who send those mails, at this point. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I have received none, insofar as I can recall. I may have been sent some a long time ago, but they were most probably not of much importance. I guess I could search my e-mail archives, but I am disinclined to do so simply because I don't think what I would find would be of much interest to anybody. AGK 13:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NB: In the copy of the archives that I have, there is no mention of me made in any e-mail. I know this because my more paranoid side checked quite soon after I received the archive. AGK 13:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant from individuals of called "secret" mailing list, to you, rather then opposite :) Sorry for the confusion. M.K. (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But you said:

• I was sorting archives and I noticed that your name is mentioned several times, one of the EEML members noted that you are generally sympathetic towards them

From that I inferred that I had been discussed on the mailing list. AGK 13:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was sorting/reviewing etc. leaked archives, in which members of that mailing list talked about you and noted sending mails to you. I just wanted to ask how much such mails did you actually received. M.K. (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? As I said, my copy of the archive has no mention of me. I'd be interested in knowing what was said of my work as an administrator. AGK 13:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For instance, I think you are mentioned here (06/03/2009 7.26), and supporting thread "Taking on Deacon" etc. M.K. (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so I am. Mac OS X Spotlight is evidently not thorough enough to detect in-e-mail references, it seems… One passing mention isn't too bad, I guess. Thanks for highlighting it. AGK 13:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are more (06/08/2009 19.44) etc etc. :) In any case, I just wanted to learn actual number of mails for statistical purposes. Sorry for all the trouble, M.K. (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom election

Just had a look at the candidates page today (I'm not very active at the moment) and saw your candidacy. I instantly thought "fuck yes". Very glad you're running for arbcom. I won't repeat what I've said in the past - you already know my opinion of you. Wishing you the very best of luck, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You really do flatter me, Steve :-). Thank you very much for your kind words. Best, AGK 23:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

TUSC

(Token: 0ceb42c00286cb056b87c6640b42973d.)

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! AGK 23:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

...for taking the time to answer my question at the arbcom elections page. It must be quite tiresome to answer all these questions. Regards - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Answering them is a lot of work, yes; but it's good preparation for the two years of arbitrating that the successful candidates will undergo. I happen to enjoy answering the questions, but I guess I'm just strange like that. :-) Regards, AGK 00:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Blanking, explanation

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that this was done on request. At least, I believe I've interpreted correctly that he wanted new content removed as well. I still don't know what's going on, but I don't want to add to his distress by asking for clarification. I don't plan to continue removing content, but when restoring the history wanted to do my best to respect his wishes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you interpreting? I am not seeing an explanation by Manning as to what he would like done with his user and user talk pages. Furthermore, why are you blanking the messages of goodwill? I can understand removing your message to avoid causing distress, but not the posts by myself and Poeticbent.
By the by: I have to say that Manning's departure has greatly saddened me. He really was a great contributor. AGK 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm interpreting the message he left me asking me to "please blank the page" after restoring the history. I gather he would simply prefer no contact at all, though certainly I'm sure he appreciates your good wishes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Teachable moment

I present two related, open-ended question-sets. I pose the pair as alternate opportunities:

• A. Have you previously encountered the phrase "Teachable moment?" If so, do you construe some plausible or prospective application of this catchphrase in relation to ArbCom? If not, why not?
• B. Are you able or willing to suggest an alternative format in which the gist of this question-set might be more appropriately presented?

Restatement: In relation to the upcoming ArbCom elections, how might these question-sets be re-written so that all candidates can make use of the question as a way to reveal their qualifications or ability to serve the community? --Tenmei (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I might be being dense, but I cannot understand what it is that you mean to ask, Tenmei (at least insofar as those questions after "A" are concerned). I would appreciate it if you could restate your question in a less impenetrable way. Thanks, AGK 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question is not among the number of potential responses I had imagined; however, it does reveal something -- that your voice is essential, necessary and not obvious. Quite simply, when you don't understand, you typically ask for a restatement. With regret, I have learned that this as a non-standard response in our wiki-venue; and it's quite unconventional in the ArbCom setting.

ArbCom requires willing and able volunteers to apply their best judgment in circumstances which are unclear. ArbCom disputants are likely write in ways which obscure meaning and intention. Nevertheless, ArbCom is obliged to make decisions -- to try again and again to make the "crooked straight and the rough places plain" ....

In this trivial thread, you demonstrate how you are a little bit different. You ask me to try again to explain what I mean using different words. In this instance, your response is more pivotal than my question. My inquiry can wait, but the mindset which asks this kind of question in response to a question is urgently needed in ArbCom deliberations. --Tenmei (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would rather be honest with you, than try to waffle my way through an answer. :-) I'm glad you approve of my approach. Hope to get your re-phrased question soon. Regards, AGK 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

• Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues

• News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more

• In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about Ottava evidence archival

Re: [1]. I don't have a problem with archiving this discussion, as it wasn't going anywhere useful, but I just wanted to ask something about the rationale you gave. You said, "The scope of this case is the conduct of Ottava Rima, to the exclusion of all else." This means, I hope that discussion of an apology is outside the scope of the arbitration, but his accusations of meatpuppetry are in scope, yes? To see the kind of thing I mean, see my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions/Evidence#Claims_of_meatpuppetry.2Ftag-teaming.2Finappropriate_collaboration. To repeat myself, I'm not questioning your archiving, just trying to make sure I understand the rationale. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You understand my rationale correctly. But I would stress that repetitious discussions about the meat-puppetry accusations would be equally as unhelpful. Your options, I guess, are to submit evidence to support your claim that these accusations were made, or to forevermore stay quiet on the subject. I would advise that both that you promptly pick one or the other option, and that you do not pursue any other course of action. I hope this clarifies things. Regards, AGK 01:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but I'm a bit confused--the evidence section I linked to does support my claim that the accusations were made... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah; I didn't notice that you had submitted evidence. (Actually, I didn't even click your link. I seemed to have not even read that part of your message, probably because I'm up later than I normally am!) The discussion was still a request for an apology, and so the archival stands. And as I said in my previous comment, even if it was not a request for an apology, I don't think the discussion would have achieved but the stirring of drama or unease. Is that more clear? AGK 01:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Thanks for the response, and I think you're right about the discussion doing nothing but stirring drama, so thanks for closing it. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

please set the record straight

RfC would not work because the complaints are based upon private correspondence. The answer is to go to ArbCom. If FT2 will not give me copies of the logs so I can defend myself, I'd expect them to disallow his claims. As for Elonka, FT2's complaints about me relate to me dealings with her. I can't address his concerns without covering those issues; hence, she had to be invited to participate. Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have you asked Lar et al for permission to publish the discussions?
• You haven't rebutted any of the other points I made about why the arbitration request is ill-advised or why a case would be unnecessary. Countering arguments are as important as setting the record straight. Regards, AGK 00:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

FT2 has some logs from which he's picked a few comments to share. Taken out of context, they might not portray me fairly. It is very odd that nobody will send me the logs of my own conversations. I stated above that RfC is the wrong venue for disputes over private correspondence. I will not authorize publication of any of my private correspondence, as I am a strong believer in the right to privacy. You might be right that arbitration won't be helpful, but it seems like the only remaining option besides walking away. Jehochman ^Talk 00:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Walking away would certainly be less helpful, even than arbitration. I would agree that the logs must be published in full: context is vital. And please be aware of this. AGK 00:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in publication. Rather, I want copies of the full logs so I can review them. Then we can discuss next steps. In general I am opposed to releasing or pressuring editors to release their private correspondence. Jehochman ^Talk 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; by "published in full", I meant "given to you in full" (and not in the form of a synopsis or in excerpts). AGK 01:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how things go, this might be good enough, or I might ask for all the materials missing from the log gaps. FT2 thinks those materials are not relevant. I might like to form my own opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To confirm, Jehochman's now been sent copies of all relevant logs. The email was CCed to Lar and Alison, so they can check what they got, matches what I'm sending. I also included a copy of the log snips that I had previously sent Jehochman, so that he, Alison and Lar can compare those too, for fairness. I also asked that, if the case is accepted, Lar forwards the same email I just sent, to Arbcom, so they get the same too.

What these will show is that Jehochman got a precise, meticulous and accurate extract of the logs already, that contains all the relevant text, with no possibility of misunderstanding, and there's nothing in the rest that would change things. Which is about what I told him. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This whole "OMG we can't get on :'(" thing honestly does bore me. But in any case, thanks for doing the fair thing. AGK 01:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Arcticocean

Hey, Arcticocean. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- Vatsan34 (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Vatsan! AGK 11:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance Request

I got your name from the Editorial Assistance page - but I see you are in the midst of a vote, are you still available to help? I opened an ANI complaint here [2] which was ruled not 3RR and ruled to be a content dispute. So where do I go from here? I already tried a RfC [[3]] and got no comments - one of the previous editors replied that there was too much POV-pushing on the article. I have definitely tried to engage the other editor on the Talk page. I would like some input as to where to go from here. Riverpa (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry to have to bother you again, but I have to ask you to look at Anonimu's battleground (imo) activity on a high-profile BLP: Traian Băsescu. Please, let me know if I should raise this issue somewhere else. Thank you for your assistance, Dc76\^talk 03:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific links:

• Anonimu makes a revert on 03:23, 29 November 2009 in Traian Basescu. In particular, it replaces this:

===PDL-PSD coalition government=== In December 2008, in the aftermath of legislative elections which gave PDL and PSD, similar scores, the two joined forces to form a coalition, under Prime Minister [[Emil Boc]] (PDL). PSD left it in early October 2009,<ref name=AFP>Isabelle Wesselingh (AFP) – Nov 14, 2009, [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hIIFBZS9EuJ1RDmAXawK9YgAEYGw Romanian president steps up attacks ahead of poll]</ref> after one of its Interior Minister was expelled from the government by the Prime Minister,<ref name=blajan>Anne-Marie Blajan, [http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/corruption-casts-a-long-shadow/66467.aspx Corruption casts a long shadow]], [[European Voice]], November 19, 2009. Accessed on November 28, 2009</ref> provoking the collapse of the minority government led by [[Emil Boc]]<ref name=AFP/> following the adoption of a [[motion of no confidence]] in Parliament. Băsescu nominated [[Lucian Croitoru]], an independent economist, as a new Prime Minister, against the will of an ad-hoc Parliament tipical aliance led by the Liberals and the Socialists (which enjoyed majority in the Parliament) that supported the candidature of [[Klaus Iohannis]]. After the Parliament refused to back Croitoru's porposed government, Băsescu nominated as Prime Minister [[Liviu Negoiţă]] (PDL), ignoring again the will of the majority in the Parliament.<ref name=blajan/> A caretaker government remains in office. The ongoing political crisis has prevented Romania from getting two instalments of a 20-billion-euro loan from the [[International Monetary Fund]] and the [[European Union]].<ref name=AFP/>

with this:

In December 2008, in the aftermath of legislative elections which gave PDL and PSD, similar scores, the two joined forces to form a coalition, under a PDL prime minister. After one of its ministers was expelled from the government by the prime minister against the will of the party, the PSD decided to leave the government in early October. Soon afterwards, the government fell following the adoption of a [[motion of no confidence]] in Parliament. Băsescu nominated [[Lucian Croitoru]] as a new prime minister, against the will of the Parliament majority, which supported [[Klaus Iohannis]] as prime minister. After Croitoru was voted down, Băsescu nominated as prime minister PDL member [[Liviu Negoiţă]], ignoring again the proposal of the Parliament majority.<ref>Anne-Marie Blajan, [http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/corruption-casts-a-long-shadow/66467.aspx Corruption casts a long shadow]], [[European Voice]], November 19, 2009. Accessed on November 28, 2009</ref> A caretaker government remains in office. The ongoing political crisis has prevented Romania from getting two instalments of a 20-billion-euro loan from the [[International Monetary Fund]] and the [[European Union]].<ref>Isabelle Wesselingh (AFP) – Nov 14, 2009, [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hIIFBZS9EuJ1RDmAXawK9YgAEYGw Romanian president steps up attacks ahead of poll]</ref>

• Now, please, note that the same text is replaced with the same other text on 12:15, 28 November 2009, i.e. 15 hours earlier.

I only gave the differences in one paragraph. One can take each paragraph and show that other paragraphs are also changed in exactly the same manner within less than 24 hours. Intermediately, he does some spelling and style corrections, which clot the appearance and one can not see properly what is being changed through diffs. (Also, I re-arranged the order of some subsections, which further clots the diff function). But everything can be seen if one analyses sentence by sentence.

In parallel, you can see the same tactic employed in Bessarabia, but there without coming under 24 hours:

• Here, at 08:40, 27 November 2009, this text:

In accordance with the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact]], in 1940, Bessarabia was [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina|occupied]] by the [[Soviet Union]]. Romania recovered shortly the territory again between 1941 and 1944.

is changed into this:

In 1940, Bessarabia was [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina|occupied]] by the [[USSR]]. Romanian and [[Nazi Germany|Nazi German]] troops reconquered the territory between 1941 and 1944.

28 hours latter, at 12:47, 28 November 2009, the exact same piece:

In accordance with the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact]], in 1940, Bessarabia was [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina|occupied]] by the [[Soviet Union]]. Romania recovered shortly the territory again between 1941 and 1944.

is changed into a slightly different one to avoid being obviously a revert:

In 1940, Bessarabia was [[Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina|occupied]] by the [[USSR]]. Romania, at the time one of the [[Axis Powers]], recaptured it between 1941 and 1944.

The point Anonimu tries to make is that Romania would have been a Nazi ally, while USSR wouldn't have been. The current version, which he still might want to revert after some 10 more hours pass, describes that both USSR was in agreement with the Nazis when it attacked Romania (then a Frenco-British ally) in June 1940, and Romania has (as a result) allied with Nazi Germany in June 1941 to recover the said territories from the USSR. The article itself is about the said historical region.

In accordance with the 1939 Nazi-Soviet agreement known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in June 1940, Bessarabia was occupied by the Soviet Union. In the wake of this event Romania turned for help to the Nazi Germany, and with the latter's military assistance recovered shortly the territory again between 1941 and 1944.

I believe this is not quite "impeccable behavior" within the letter and the spirit of 1RR. Dc76\^talk 12:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

AGK you may look up the EEML archives to see how Dc76 specifically indicated that he will try to disrupt BLP such as Traian Basescu (mentioned by name!) just to fool an admin into blocking me. This is just a premeditated attack. The article fully respects the BLP guidelines, even if Dc76 is trying to use that as a reason to whitewash the personage. All sources are highly reliable English language sources (AFP, European Voice), and every opinion is attributed to its author.

As for Bessarabia, the facts are pretty clear : Romania was a staunch Nazi ally, it closely collaborated with Germany (the largest non-German Axis group at Stalingrad), and jointly with the Einsatzgruppen deathsquads it massacred about 300,000 Jews, 90,000 of them from Bessarabia (that would make Romania one of the largest Holocaust perpetrators, second only to Nazi Germany). It's very relevant thus that when Romania captured Bessarabia, it was the most important Nazi ally in Eastern Europe. The claim about a "Nazi-Soviet" alliance is a red herring, the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact being just a non-aggression pact, very similar to the Munich Agreement, when Germany and Poland had their claims over Czechoslovakia acknowledged by Britain and France. The only cooperation between Germany and Soviet Union was one joint parade in Poland... the collaboration between Nazi Germany and Romania resulted in more than 300,000 innocent civilian killed just for their ethnicity/religion. By equating the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact with the relation between two Axis country he is tarnishing the memory of those civilians, just because it fits his personal POV. (It may be relevant to know that about one year ago the Romanian Supreme Court turned down a proposal to rehabilitate Ion Antonescu, proposal whose arguments were exactly those used here by Dc76).Anonimu (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All issues considered, I think it would be better if this complaint were taken to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. I would rather not involve myself. Regards, AGK 18:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I would like to mention that I am busy in real life,a nd when I am not busy, I am too tired to get online. Therefore, please excuse me, I am not able to keep pace in a timely manner.

Second, you can notice that Anonimu's disruption continued with reverting the same paragraph on 14:39, 30 November 2009. In particular, for the third time in a row, he removed my subsection brake ===PDL-PSD coalition government=== which separated the text pertaining to the May 2007 referendum from December 2008-2009 events. What Anonimu did 3 times in a row, in particular was to put 2008-2009 events under the subsection about the May 2007 referendum. This obvious non-sense demonstrates that he never even considers my edits, and simply reverts me and "improves" the reverted to text so it does not look too revert. It doesn't take more than 2 minutes for you to check this.

Third, I am sorry, but I believe ANI is not the appropriate forum here. At least, not before you have considered the matter and have pronounced your determination. Anonimu is under your mentorship. You took upon yourself, without being forced to do that, the responsibility following from your restoration of Anonimu's rights after his permanent ban. You agreed to be his mentor. Therefore, with all due respect, you have to follow through with a responsibility you yourself put upon your shoulders. I am very sorry if my words sound harsh. I have deep respect for your good judgment. Believe me, I wouldn't say these words if I wouldn't be convinced that my interlocutor is a person that values the word "responsibility". But, please, understand, it is unfair and incorrect if x restores the rights of a permanently banned user y, assumes to be y's mentor, and then recuses himself. In this manner, all permanently banned users can be restored to full rights, and then be sent to ANI when problems arise. That would be inappropriate, I am sure you would agree. It would be perfectly understandable if you are busy and need more time to review; there is no particular rush. But if you want to recuse yourself entirely, it would be honest to re-block Anonimu per his original block, and help him find another mentor ready to take the matter from zero, i.e. someone who should first revue and discuss with Anonimu specific concerns before considering restoring his rights. Otherwise, the responsibility evaporates. Please, correct me if/where I am wrong. Dc76\^talk 16:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Assistance Request - Again

I am cutting and pasting this again as I am not sure if you were responding to me or not, since there was no header in between my request and the following person's rather lengthy request. Also, I have already tried an RfC and an ANI posting and was referred farther up the chain, and I am basically asking how to go about that.

I got your name from the Editorial Assistance page - but I see you are in the midst of a vote, are you still available to help? I opened an ANI complaint here [4] which was ruled not 3RR and ruled to be a content dispute. So where do I go from here? I already tried a RfC [[5]] and got no comments - one of the previous editors replied that there was too much POV-pushing on the article. I have definitely tried to engage the other editor on the Talk page. I would like some input as to where to go from here. Riverpa (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was the consensus of those at the administrators' noticeboard that this is a content, not a conduct, matter, then you should pursue the appropriate methods of content dispute resolution. You might like to start with the mediation cabal. I am disinclined to offer more lengthy advice at this point, as a continuation of my earlier reluctance. AGK 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I thought you were responding to the other request that was piggybacked on to my heading, which is why I posted again. There was no consensus at the administrator's noticeboard that I know of, only one admin's response. In the meantime, the other editor has opened a NPOV posting, and has spent the last couple of days trying to add some more neutral content to the article, though badly. He seldom engages on the Talk page, and he deletes or alters most of what he does not write. The article is basically a mess. Is that conduct or content? Riverpa (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where you object to an editor's addition to an encyclopedia entry, tell him so (on the article talk or his user talk page). If he refuses to engage with you and presses on, he is failing to collaborate effectively; and that would be a conduct issue that an administrator could sanction. This comment is made on the basis of the hypothetical you describe. I haven't looked into the specifics here. AGK 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely where would I do that? I am not a novice in following directions, but I cannot follow the pathway through the Dispute Resolution wicket. It seems to lead in circles. Thanks you again. Riverpa (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where would you report such conduct? At the administrators' noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard, in most cases. You could also approach an uninvolved administrator directly, although that option is much less preferable. The key to effectively filing such a report is to write a good message. You need to say "This user is doing X. By doing so, he is harming the encyclopedia because Y. I request that something be done about it." Is that a little more clear? (Sorry if I wasn't helpful enough on this note in my last message.) AGK 12:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, you have been great, sometimes I do not communicate as well as I might. Riverpa (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

• News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

• In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Still remains - my #5. No hurry, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I hadn't noted that your fifth question remained unanswered. I've published my response to it. Regards, AGK 13:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock term

As you may already know, one of the terms of my unblocking was to abide by 1RR. Is there any process through which I could have this particular term of my unblocking reviewed in view of rescission? Anonimu (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As you were unbanned by the ban appeals subcommittee, any petition for a review of your editing restrictions would, I imagine, have to be submitted to the arbitration committee mailing list. An amendment would only be made if it were in the project's interests, and would in any case probably need the support of your mentor—that's me, if you've forgotten. Is there any compelling reason why you would like the 1RR restriction lifted? Are you finding that it is impairing your contributions? AGK 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. As for your question: some members of the EEML have pledged to try (and have tried at least three times since) to get me banned by trying to manipulate diffs to show a supposed breach of 1RR by myself. This is severely impeding my editing, as I have to check the history of the articles every time I want to correct smth just to see whether certain editors or IPs have deliberately introduced content against WP policy just to make me revert and eventually breach this term.Anonimu (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a reasonable case. But remember the claims that such pledges have been made would have to be verified, by way of a diff or other reference. Could you please cc me into your e-mail to the committee, if you choose to send one? AGK 18:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

scope of topic ban

Hello AGK, regarding your change of my topic ban. You said I am adjusting my initial sanction of Nableezy, after much consideration. The ban on editing article content is reduced from six months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction. A question has come up as to whether I am banned from AfDs for 1, 2 or the original 4 months. It is my view that the AfD is effectively an extension of a talk page and so I have edited accordingly. Another user has suggested as you did not discuss things outside of article and article-talk in your amendment that the ban on AfDs remains 4 months. Either way, could you please provide some clarification? nableezy - 08:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The AE is on hold until there is clarification as seen here. I have no doubt in my mind what you, AGK, meant with the reduction in the sanction. It looks like Epeefleche was looking into the wording as he wanted to and not as you meant it.Cptnono (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussions should for the purposes of enforcement of this sanction be treated as article talkpages. I am sorry that I did not forese the ambiguity that has here arisen. AGK 01:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)