User talk:Arcticocean

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every six months thereafter);

• William M. Connolley
• Polargeo
• Thegoodlocust
• Marknutley
• ChrisO
• Minor4th
• ATren
• Hipocrite
• Cla68
• GregJackP
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Verbal
• ZuluPapa5
• JohnWBarber
• FellGleaming

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [1]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [2]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
<signature>

Discuss this

Attention needed at arbitration enforcement

Hi AGK, I hope you don’t mind me contacting you about this. NuclearWarfare has referred me to you as someone I should bring this up with due to how fair you are, now that NW is no longer an admin.

Earlier this month, NW topic banned me from articles related to race and intelligence via the discretionary sanctions that were authorized on these articles in the recent arbitration case about them. My topic ban was not based on any misconduct on my part, but because I share an IP address with an editor who was topic banned in the arbitration case. When I discussed my topic ban with NW in his user talk, I told him I was concerned about certain other editor behavior on these articles which wasn’t being addressed, and in response NW said that despite my topic ban I still had permission to bring up this behavior at Arbitration Enforcement. [3] One of the arbitrators has also given me permission to do this: [4]

I’ve now posted an arbitration enforcement thread about the user conduct issues that NW said I could post about there. This is the first AE thread I’ve ever posted, the admin who topic banned me has given me permission to post it, and it’s about the exact same issues that I was discussing with NW when he gave me this permission, so I don’t think this thread can be considered a violation of my topic ban. Neither does NW. But almost all of the admins who’ve commented in this thread seem to be unaware that I was given permission to post this thread, and are ignoring my explanation about it. They’ve also said that as a result, the request should not be processed and that I should face additional sanctions or warnings for posting it. I’ve tried to explain to some of these admins in their user talk that I had permission to post this thread, without success. NW has also commented in the thread, saying that his topic ban was not intended to prevent me from posting there, but his comment is being ignored as well.

NW has suggested that I contact you about this and see if you would be willing to post there. I’d really appreciate it if you were. If you are, there are also a few other issues in this thread that I think need attention:

• One of the admins who’s suggesting that I’m violating my topic ban in the “result” section, RegentsPark, I don’t think can be considered uninvolved here. In NW’s user talk I’ve linked to a few examples of RegentsPark having been directly involved in the content disputes over these articles. I also linked to an example of him claiming during the arbitration case that he considers one of the perspectives about race and intelligence to be “fringe”, and that editors who think otherwise need to be “dealt with”, in order to preserve what he considers the integrity of the articles’ content. I think RegentsPark knows that I disagree with him about this, so it looks like a conflict of interest for him to argue that it’s a violation of my topic ban for me to engage in any action that could indirectly influence the content of these articles.

• One of the editors participating in the AE thread, Mathsci, was topic banned from race and intelligence articles in the arbitration case because of his incivility and battleground attitude. His behavior in this thread seems like more of the same behavior that his topic ban was intended to prevent. In the thread in NW’s user talk, NW has agreed that Mathsci’s involvement in this thread is a problem.

I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at this thread and/or comment there, preferably as soon as possible. Time is of the essence here because the thread is likely to be closed within the next day, most likely with additional sanctions for me under the assumption that I violated my topic ban by posting it. I think the thread might be ready to be closed at this point, but it matters to me a lot that the admin who closes it be someone who understands all the specifics of this situation, as well as who’s willing to examine whether RegentsPark and Mathsci have acted appropriately there. Could you please take a look at this thread, and offer your opinion there?

Thank you in advance. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I've posted a comment at the enforcement request, in the uninvolved administrators discussion section. Regards, AGK 18:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick action. If it's not too much to ask, would you mind keeping an eye on this thread? After seeing so many admins ignore NW’s explanation, I'm concerned about this continuing to happen with yours. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the AE thread is probably going to close without sanctions for me, but I still find it disappointing that the subject of the thread was never addressed. Is there any way to get admins to pay attention to any of the user conduct on Weiji's part that I think is problematic? I get the feeling that most of the uninvolved admins who’ve commented didn't even click on most of the diffs to see if there was a problem. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The AE thread just got closed. It resulted in no sanctions to me, probably in part due to your intervention, so thank you for that. But it still bothers me that after determining I wasn't violating my topic ban by posting it, admins closed the thread without any discussion about the content of my report.

If possible, I would still like an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the diffs that were in my report and decide whether the behavior they demonstrate is problematic. Do you have any suggestions about how to accomplish that? If it's determined that nothing in the diffs warrants a warning (or anything else), then I'll accept that and move on. Thus far, though, the content of my report has been largely ignored.

I'd appreciate it if you could get back to me about this. Since I first got involved in r&i articles in September, I've been trying to figure out how to get admins to pay attention to editor behavior on these articles. Discretionary sanctions don't mean anything if uninvolved admins never pay attention to behavior on them that might be problematic. Whenever I've tried bringing this up in admins' user talks the issue generally gets ignored, and NW's suggestion about starting an AE thread about it obviously failed too. I'm not sure if I'm just missing something here - it can't be the case that having discretionary sanctions authorized means nothing at all. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please respond here? He's still reinserting the same POV-pushing material in the Race and health article that was brought up as an examples in the AE thread, which includes putting scare quotes around the word “race”, and blanking a large amount of sourced content without explaining why.

I’m going to try and resolve this with him on the article talk page, but I don’t really expect this to be productive because of how it’s gone when I tried to discuss something like this with him before. I've seen him do the same thing with other editors. He’s always polite, but he also displays an attitude of not accepting the possibility that anyone else is capable of improving on his edits, or that he needs to justify them to anyone.

On the whole I’m becoming mildly irritated by the idea that there’s no way to get the attention of the admins in regards to these articles. If another editor is engaged in POV-pushing on an article I’m involved in, is there nothing I can do about it? I feel that what is going on is unfair.-SightWatcher (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Help, please

Hi, I have come here because I'm not sure where else I should go with this as I've never been in this situation before. An article of mine, Brown Lady of Raynham Hall has been listed as a possible copyvio - fair enough, although I dispute the claim I will await the decision. However, an editor, Hans Adler has been rude and incivil, calling me a "liar" and a "dishonest editor". This was because I mistakenly thought a bot had tagged the article as a copyvio and I responded in error on another editors Talk Page: "While I accept that I did paste material from a website (which was wrong) and got a Copyvio message from a bot, I removed the tag not because "I was disguising my copyvios" because I entirely rewrote the content." [5] I wrote this as I was rather confused as to which article the bot had tagged.

Hans Adler wrote "CorenSearchBot did not detect your copyvio on the Brown Lady article. Unless you have a much longer and more recent history of reverting CorenSearchBot than is apparent from the contribution history of the account Jack1956, it simply makes no sense for you to claim that you were referring to the Brown Lady article (which has no bot edits in its history [13]) when you wrote the following: "While I accept that I did [...] and got a Copyvio message from a bot, I removed the tag not because 'I was disguising my edits' but because [...]." Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said it for the first time: It is not in your best interest to lie about easily verifiable facts.

Additionally, if you want to lie without being called to account for it in plain language, you are indeed on the wrong talk page. I do not believe in making it easy for dishonest editors to deceive themselves about their character. You are very welcome to draw additional attention on yourself by reporting me for my "lack of civility". We will need all the eyes we can get to clean up your copyvios, some of which are probably from offline sources and thus very hard to detect. Hans Adler" see here

It is my belief that Hans Adler has not assumed good faith and has acted incivily in calling me a 'liar' and 'dishonest'. Jack1956 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on Hans' talk page, and will, beginning with my questions there, look into this matter for you. I would advise you in the strongest possible terms to reveal now if you have based your edits on any texts, freely licensed or otherwise, and available online or only offline—even if you think you have duly credited them or have not explicitly relied on them for your edits. Editors who violate copyright whilst adding to Wikipedia's articles and who do so inadvertently will find themselves being gently educated on the requirements of our site; those who do so deliberately, or who conceal their violations even when challenged, are gravely violating the project's standing as a reliable compendium of knowledge and will probably find themselves prohibited from contributing. If you fall into either of these categories, please make it the former. Regards, < font color="black">AGK 20:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can think of. I have always tried to follow the rules but may have inadvertently slipped up, as it is claimed I did here. Jack1956 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On checking I accept that Walter Dew and Brown Lady contain some material which is a copyvio. I thought I had rewritten the material to an acceptable standard - I see now I did not. I cited the source of each copyvio in the articles themselves. There may be others I am not aware of. Jack1956 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally: I suggest locking the article during mediation

Hi AGK. The mediation Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Restoring_Honor_rally is processing a little bit slow, because the moderator wiki/User:Wgfinley is very overloaded at work - which of course is absolutely ok and nobody is complaining about it (who does not know this). However, in the meanwhile an edit war seems to emerge again at the article itself. So I suggest locking the article. Thank you. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)