User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:33, 20 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This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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.

Why?

Hi, I just would like to know why you closed out the discussion about Barong/Merridew etc. so quickly? I wanted to comment there but now I can't. So since I cannot comment there I will tell you and you can share this with whoever you wish to. I have blanked my user page and unless given a good reason not to, my talk page will be next and I will slap a retirement tag up. I am and have been being harrassed and stalked by this editor for awhile with no help to get it to stop. (See my talk page.) What else do you think I can do other than leave this project? For the record I am an editor in good standing. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. As a matter of procedure, requests for enforcement are closed once the request has been actioned by an uninvolved administrator. Barong's secondary accounts were blocked by me, and the associated IP range was blocked by User:Amalthea, which meant that the complaint was resolved. It was not my intention to prevent any outside comment by you or others, but I believe that we collapse requests in order to prevent lengthy discussion; requests for enforcement is not a forum for community discussion, but for actioning specific violations of arbitration rulings. In this case, your comment would have been better raised at WP:ANI, unless you have evidence that Barong has violated a current arbitration remedy.

The allegation that Jack is harassing you is a serious one. Most importantly, I would encourage you to not quit Wikipedia. The community, and the Arbitration Committee, do not condone editor harassment, and I believe that we have shown ourselves to be very willing to take action to prevent such behaviour. If Barong is harassing you, then you simply need to bring it to the attention of the Arbitration Committee, especially if the harassment involves off-wiki (or real-life) venues. After a preliminary examination of the matter, and of your talk page, it seems to me as though the issue is that Barong is inappropriately interacting with you; that kind of thing could be handled on a community level, as long as there is no off-wiki or privacy element. Therefore, you could proceed either by e-mailing evidence of harassment to ArbCom (details), or by initiating a community ban request (at WP:AN) or a request for an administrator attention (at WP:ANI). If you want to pass a full index of the evidence of the harassment to me privately, I will pass it to the appropriate forum, and I will also talk privately with Barong to ask precisely what he was thinking when he did this. Regards, AGK [•] 15:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I now understand why you did close it off and it makes sense. I'm not being stalked or harrassed off Wikipedia forturnately. I did contact an arbitrator about the situation. I have been bouncing in and out of the hospital lately that I am quite weak right now. My last visit to the hospital was last week Sunday through Weds. All three times I was told I almost died so I am now taking it slower to rehab myself. Doc#1 is a friend who tries to watch over me knowing my situations. We talk about all kinds of things off this site. He is a good friend to me, I just thought you should know this. The last thing I need is the editor mentioned above following me around and making comments to me like this or his butting in to make useless comments in this thread here are just examples of his following me around to make nonsense comments about me not be competent to this project. He is doing all he can to make me quit and almost succeeded. He already got one long term editor to leave the project that I'm aware of and not I am on his hit list along with Doc9871. What I find really hard to take is that he is allowed to behave this way on an administrator's talk page with no comments to stop. I have been told by this administrator that she doesn't agree with the arbitrators so she isn't going to enforce their decision. Fine, I don't care except the attacks are against me not her. She isn't allowed to ignore what the arbitrators decide is she? She admits friendship with him and used WP:INVOLVED for not doing anything. She has also thrown in WP:COI into the mix. I'm not sure about that one though. All I want is to be able to edit in peace, is that so impossible to ask for? I would like me talk page semi protected if you wouldn't mind. That may help some of this which was a suggestion I got via email. Thank you again for your time. I don't know if I should have taken this to email or not to be honest. If you look at my contributions you will see I haven't been too active for awhile now which is due to being in the hospital and trying to recover. I come to this project for brain stimulation, fun and enjoyment. I want that back if possible. Feel free to email me if you would like to. Thanks again and good night, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mick McNee case

Thanks for the notice re: the opening of this case. Although I have commented on whether the case should be opened, I really have no specific evidence to present, and do not plan to. I don't mind being listed as a party, but removing me wouldn't be inaccurate either, as I've not had significant negative personal interaction with MMN. I'll leave it up to you. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a clerk, there is no provision for me to unilaterally remove editors from the list of named parties; that is a question that you must put to the arbitrators. User:Sandstein has just asked the Committee to remove him from the list of parties, so I recommend that you chime in there. Regards, AGK [•] 11:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. Thanks for the pointer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A follow on from the above. Where do I find where the scope of the case is defined? The first statement by Chester Markel seemed to cover both Mick generally and this latest incident from ITN at AN/I. But I've seen some comments suggesting the scope should be limited to the latter. If it is, then I wasn't involved and have no evidence to give. If it's the wider scope (which some of the Arbs seem to say) then I can provide evidence. Can you clarify? Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why not all the initial comments have been included on the case page? Is there a reason for that? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only comments from the parties are placed on the main case page. The comments of uninvolved editors are kept on the talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 21:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eraserhead: ibidem. Also note WP:AC/C/P#Opening a case step 2) point ii). Regards, AGK [•] 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decausa: To accord with the principle that Arbitration is not a quasi-judicial process, there is no requirement that the scope of a case be defined prior to a request being accepted. Rather, the scope of a case is in general terms the conduct of a user or a group of users, usually with incidents (viz. ITN at ANI) specified as context. Broadly speaking, the scope is whatever the Committee makes it in the course of evaluating the dispute. The purpose of arbitration proceedings is to resolve a problem in a general way, rather than to adjudicate narrow lines of enquiry. I would recommend that you submit your evidence anyway, and if the arbitrators decide that they do not want to examine that aspect of MickMacNee's contributions then they would simply discount it. I hope this is helpful, but please remember that as a clerk, my involvement in the process is purely administrative, and as a community member, my comments reflect my own understanding of the process (and may be completely starkers). Regards, AGK [•] 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make you aware as a clerk in the case, as I have no experience in Arbcom and I did not get a chance to add an initial statement prior to the accepting of the case, I added my statement to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your change on my watchlist, but thank you for notifying me: courtesy is too infrequent at arbitration. The purpose of these statements is to inform the Committee when it is deciding whether to open arbitration proceedings for a dispute. After the case is accepted, these statements are largely useless, because the proceedings during the case phase are based entirely on the evidence and workshop pages - not talk page discussion, or formal statements. However, I recognise that editors who missed the request phase would want to give their statement, if only so the public record is complete, or it does not later appear as though the editor intentionally did not participate in the request. I can especially understand this in cases such as this one, which was opened quite speedily. I have moved your statement to the main case page, because you are an involved party and only statements by uninvolved editors go on the talk page, and have noted underneath the statement that it was added after the case was accepted, but otherwise I've no problem with your action. Regards, AGK [•] 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I was glad to help, and I wish you the best with Hugh Hickling. Finetooth (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

This reply is late because your topic ban coincided with some important things happening in real life that is very time consuming and that I have to put before anything else.

I talk a lot with other editors at talkpages in regards to A-I issues.

1. How is the edit pointy? I have already showed several reliable sources showing that the area is disputed, several editors have agreed with that it is disputed, I made one single edit and no revert, and when it was challenged, I opened discussion at talkpage. Why aren't you topic banning those who agreed that it is disputed and the editor who re added the category? Why aren't you topic banning other editors who ad information to Wikipedia articles that is backed up by reliable sources?

2. In the edit at the Nakba article, I moved information about East Jerusalem from the Israel section to the Palestinian territories section. My edit summary is accurate as can be seen in this source:[1], I also opened up a discussion at the talkpage when my edit was challenged: [2]. Someone first put it in the Israel section right? Why aren't you topic banning that guy? User:Plot Spoiler moved the information from the Palestinian territories section and added it to the Israel section:[3], why aren't you topic banning him? Admin al Ameer son, like me, followed the majority of the international community and added EJ to the PT section, [4] why aren't you topic banning him? In these edits, user Reneem twice moved information about Old city of Jerusalem from the Palestinian territories section to the Israel section:[5][6], why aren't you topic banning him?

Also notice that the user who opened the enforcement against me, Biosketch, brought up my edits at the Nakba day article, user Reneem has repeatably added "the Israeli portion of the Golan Heights" [7][8] and repeatedly edit warred and violated the 1 rr: [9][10][11][12][13], yet Bioskecth doesn't open any enforcement against him... imagine that.

3. At that time, it was not unclear which caption was correct. This is the image:[14], this is the source in the image:[15], what does the source say? Gilabrand had just "unilaterally" removed it based on her own original research that Arab women didn't wear pants and according to here they look Indian, this is not a valid argument and is not based on anything - as you yourself said: "Contestable edits on Wikipedia can only proceed if they are verifiable and supported by consensus.", which was not the case here, I also made a post at the talkpage when I reinstated the image.

4. User Gilabrand had just recently "unilaterally" removed that in the geography section that its in southwestern Syria without discussion and seeking consensus, and she also added a source following the Israeli narrative disregarding the international view. How is this: "removal of sources that do not match my point of view" ? I also made a post at the talkpage when I made the edit.

On a last note, let us not forget in previous enforcement, where I showed evidence that a user repeatedly violated npov, [16][17] we are talking about this user claiming a region that is internationally recognized as part of Syria as if it was "in Israel", misrepresentation of sources, etc.

When you then commented about him and my edits, you did not bring up one single diff about this :[18]

Also your no action in regards to the users participating in the of-wiki canvassing/meatpuppeting cable.

{blanked} --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the last part of your comment. I'm all for open debate, but I refuse to be spoken to in a way that frankly is nothing but offensive. You are welcome to rephrase your argument in a way that is professional, but do not ever again post that kind of thing on my talk page. AGK [•] 20:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#For_AGK}}

Responded. AGK [•] 09:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay mentioned

FYI: I mentioned your User:AGK/Arbitration and content essay at WT:Civil POV pushing#Musings. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the FYI, and I'm glad you found my essay to be useful! AGK [•] 09:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{you've got mail}}

I have received your message and responded. Regards, AGK [•] 12:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've now made the dispute resolution noticeboard live. Time to see if it flops or not. I hope it doesn't, I'd have serious egg on my face if it does. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I do hope that it proves useful. Have you publicised that it has gone live? As a minimum, most editors would expect to see some kind of announcement about its creation at ANI, the VP, and perhaps the RS sysop noticeboards. Regards, AGK [•] 20:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted permanent notices onto the content noticeboard, WQA, Editors assistance/requests, ANI and AN, as well as written ones at AN. You think anywhere else should be used? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being clear on the board's purpose here?, because it seems I am not. Your comments would be appreciated. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing case

I understand that you are busy but this must be the first time a case has remained open beyond the term of the reported party's sanction. After all the froth and bubble at AE, Russavia has finally lodged an amendment request [19] as I suggested [20]. I think after 8 days the case is well and truly stale. At this late stage any further action would be seen as punitive rather than preventative. The case is rapidly descending into a circus, with further accusations [21],[22] (which I don't want to be forced into interaction by having to respond) in an apparent attempt at retaliation for me originally seeking admin assistance to prevent continued violation beyond this. --Martin (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration and am sorry for the continued delay. I will review the enforcement request at present, put an end to any unhelpful discussion, and then conclusively action the thread. With regards to your point that to belatedly sanction you now would be punitive, I also empathise with that point, but in answer would observe that, before low-level conduct enforcement was delegated to community administrators by the Arbitration Committee, specific instances of misconduct would often be dealt with after a delay of over one, two, and even three months; I would also contend that the busyness of the community's administrators should not result in the non-issuing of sanctions for misconduct. To be clear, I have not yet undertaken a final review of your conduct, although I have looked into the matter on a preliminary basis, and so I am not yet making any comment on the specific enforcement request; rather, I am speaking in general terms. Thank you for your ongoing patience. Best, AGK [•] 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the explicit exemption to reporting interaction ban violations by the other party contained in WP:IBAN, while the block now cannot be undone, would you consider amending the result as requested here. I would consider the matter closed if you did, otherwise I would have to seek ArbCom's input into the matter. Thanks for your time. --Martin (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that after admitting that the basis of your original block was wrong in light of policy contained in WP:IBAN here, you have found a new reason to justify your block, one which I find is also flawed. I had hoped this could have be settled and made good. I would have atleast expected you to amend the result of the AE case to reflect your new rationale before closing, as this is effectively a record for future reference and the recorded result no longer reflects this new rationale of yours and is now, in fact, misleading. --Martin (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hey there AGK, they say the only stupid question is one that goes unasked ... soooo .... I noticed that several people got added to the MMN case "per arb. decision" ... is that a discussion that's held in public?, a private discussion? .. a single arb can request it? ... or none of my business? ... I was just wondering is all. ... and NOOOOO I do NOT want to be added ... lol. — Ched : ? 19:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An action undertaken with the annotation "by Committee direction" or similar will always have been at the explicit instruction to the clerk by an arbitrator, usually through the private clerks' mailing list. It is appreciated that, because the mailing list is private, other editors cannot check that the ostensibly-authorised action is valid, but we have accepted for a few years now that that trade-off is preferable to using forms of communication that are less convenient than e-mail and the mailing list. If at any point there is reason to doubt the validity of a clerk action, an editor is welcome to ask for confirmation from the Committee. I hope this clears things up. Regards, AGK [•] 20:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM. I wasn't questioning the action in the least, it's simply that I hadn't ever noticed any on-wiki discussions by the Arbs about adding editors to a case. I realize that it's often more expedient to reach a decision via an email or IRC, and I was just curious about the process. Again, thank you for your time. Cheers and Best. — Ched : ? 20:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And yes, it is simply for convenience; and e-mail is only ever used for co-ordination, and never for arbitrator decision-making (except, of course, outside of the context of clerking, and for private matters, on arbcom-l). Also, we never use IRC for co-ordination, because that's a Very Bad Thing ;). Regards, AGK [•] 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee/Chester Markel Arb

Is there a proceedural consequence to the arbitration of Chester Markel being banned? (I'm obviously not asking about whether it effects the credibility/strength of the case etc). Does it have to have a party fulfilling Chester Markel's role to progress? If it does I'd be willing to offer myself as a party. Obviously, I'd rather not. (Posted same question to other clerk in case you're not around) DeCausa (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that MMN should be informed of the latest developments, and that the case remains open with an explanation of why that is the case. I would do it myself, but I don't want to give MMN any further reason to say that I'm harassing him (not that I have been, of course). It would be better coming from you. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question answered by Alexandr (other clerk). DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Alexandr is correct, and I have made a statement clearing up the matter on the evidence talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 19:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 ::In light of the explicit exemption to reporting interaction ban violations by the other party contained in [[WP:IBAN]], while the block now cannot be undone, would you consider amending the result as requested [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=435015376&oldid=434974314 here]. I would consider the matter closed if you did, otherwise I would have to seek ArbCom's input into the matter. Thanks for your time. --[[User:Tammsalu|Martin]] ([[User talk:Tammsalu|talk]]) 00:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
+:::I am disappointed that after admitting that the basis of your original block was wrong in light of policy contained in [[WP:IBAN]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tammsalu&diff=435154065&oldid=435003124 here], you have found a new reason to justify your block, one which I find is also flawed. I had hoped this could have be settled and made good. I would have atleast expected you to amend the result of the AE case to reflect your new rationale before closing, as this is effectively a record for future reference and the recorded result no longer reflects this new rationale of yours and is now, in fact, misleading. --[[User:Tammsalu|Martin]] ([[User talk:Tammsalu|talk]]) 08:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 == question ==