User talk:Arcticocean

As is the case with many editors, my availability over the holiday season may be sporadic and I cannot guarantee a prompt response. Happy Holidays!

Muhammad images question to parties

NuclearWarfare removed my question to the parties citing that he was "uncomfortable" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and that I should clear it with an Arb.

So I'm asking you:

1) Is it OK for you that I post my question

2) Is it OK for you that I post it under the level 2 section if I clearly state that the question is mine.

Thank you. PaoloNapolitano 07:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I also felt uncomfortable about the question, which is why I did not respond there. I think I have made it clear elsewhere that in my opinion there weren't any Muslims involved in the dispute when the case started. This may have changed since, and it is conceivable that we now have editors involved who (1) are Muslims, (2) live in a country where it can have negative consequences to admit being a Muslim, and (3) can be identified in real life. For obvious reasons I won't go into further details on my speculation. Hans Adler 08:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT apply. The purpose of the question was to find out if there is a pattern between Muslim/pro-Islamic users and the users who want the image removed/veiled. It would be helpful in order to establish or disestablish a COI and any later abuse because of religion or beliefs ("You f*cking Muslim") will be subject to WP:NPA sanctions. PaoloNapolitano 11:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The extent to which the section is used in a case varies with which arbitrators are taking the lead on the case, but as a rule only members of the committee can pose questions to the parties in that way. I would not like to see sub-sections being added by parties to the case, although you are welcome to suggest questions on the workshop talk page. On the specific question being posed, I am uncomfortable with questions that ask for any form of disclosure of a disputant's identity. We usually evaluate the impartiality of a disputant from their edits, not their real-life identity, and I would not like to see us (taking Muhammad images as an example topic) begin to ask editors to disclose if they are Muslim, are against Muslim 'censorship', or anything else about their real-life situation. It is the neutrality of an editor's contributions that matter on Wikipedia. AGK [•] 13:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Excellent summary, AGK. One small point: You've written that "few images of Muhammad exist that were created during his life". It is in fact none. The oldest extant images date to the 13th century, over 600 years after Muhammad's death. [1] Best, --JN466 20:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I knew that, and I'm not sure why I made that error. Anyway, fixed - thanks! AGK [•] 20:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

AGK, your statement contains some factually wrong assertions about the images in dispute, e.g. "(such as those from an atypical period when Islamic artwork was common) ". You come close to sounding like an Arab Islamist/nationalist there, practically declaring other Islamic cultures temporary aberrations (like this "RS" invoked by JN466, which also makes other errors of omission). It's for the same reason I temporarily stroke out my FoF on that. Broadly: the Arabic Islamic culture did not develop anthropomorphic representations; the Persian (using the term loosely) Islamic culture did. And such images, with certain variations like the veil, have been in continuous use in the successive Islamic cultures occupying the Iranian plateau for the past 800 years. This culture did not converge to the Arabic aniconic one as Wijdan Ali (the author of that book) and others claim; Western academics refute that. ¶ Also, I intend enter more formal /Evidence in the upcoming week. Some of us have a different idea of fun during the holidays than workshopping incessantly on ArbCom pages. I know you guys are trying to have change of pace on this case in contrast to those from last year, e.g. the one on Δ. But the on on Muhammad's images is probably not the appropriate one to rush through, especially since the more difficult evidence on civil POV pushing takes a while to amass. Thank you and Happy New Year! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Iranian culture is atypical in Islam (depending on your meaning of atypical). Its not just the Arabs; its the Arabs, Chinese, probably Central Asians, South Asians and Indonesians/Malaysians, and the Turks and Albanians. So "Persian" Islam only makes up a fairly small percentage of Islamic culture (~10-15% or so I'd guess) Additionally I don't believe mosques in Iran have images of Muhammad in them, so "Persian" culture isn't even all depiction based.

Additionally most of the depictions currently used in the article do come from a pretty small time period. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A more detailed discussion of this is on the workshop talk page and I think the grounds been covered there so I suggest agreeing to disagree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For an Iranian mosque, see Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque. It's a UNESCO World Heritage site. --JN466 23:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have withdrawn by original proposal, made a second proposal with new wording; "Articles on religious topics may not promote or preach any religious views or give undue weight to fringe theories and beliefs. Editors with strong views or beliefs about the subject should exercise particular caution when editing such articles to maintain a neutral point of view". Have a say. PaoloNapolitano 19:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ASCII, if you have read all of my Workshop section, then you would be aware that we are adhering to the standard timetable for the case. The evidence phase is still open, and all evidence submitted before the deadline will be considered. I am simply developing the draft decision, using the workshop page to solicit feedback - just as you and the other parties are doing. I will take into consideration your comment about depictions of Muhammad not being atypical, but my understanding from the dispute archive talk pages is that such is not the case - and that depictions of Muhammad are rare in Islamic artwork. AGK [•] 21:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Have I done this right?

Hi AGK. Have I put my proposal in the right place? [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's the correct procedure for submitting workshop proposals. AGK [•] 21:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal at AE

Hi, I have a question. I'm not really sure how administrative processes are modified at Wikipedia, so I was wondering what will end up happening to your proposal at AE about comments by non-neutral editors. I think the proposal is a good one and it would be a shame to see the thread archived after inactivity with nothing changed. Will it come to a vote, or will a closing admin just decide, or what? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In a couple of days, I will float the proposal on the Committee mailing lists. It already enjoys broad support at the AE and WT:A/R threads, so if my colleagues on ArbCom approve the change, I'll implement it myself. I don't think we need to endlessly discuss what is an obvious improvement. Thanks for following up on this. Regards, AGK [•] 02:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxy Revisions/Mediation

Hello Anthony,

I am writing to explain my concern over the Occidental Petroleum page. Although I am new to Wikipedia, I have tried to follow the rules and contribute material that I believe is honest and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. My apologies for not responding sooner but I was blocked and could not write to you until this moment.

I feel a little bruised by my fellow editors as you will see from the Occidental talk page. On the surface, it seems that they have made some good points. On the other hand, I feel the process has been manipulated a bit and I am hoping for another opinion here that is really neutral. I am including my latest response to my fellow editors since I think it sums up my view of this matter.

None of them will participate in mediation. They say that isn't necessary. If they are handling this properly they should have no fear of another point of view. I certainly don't. If the committee rules against me completely, I will simply lick my wounds and try to get better at this.

I thank you in advance for you consideration.

Cowboy

Acroterion: I do not really understand your belief that I have only one agenda: "to denigrate two individuals in violation of several Wikepedia policies." What I have actually done is provide information on major topics that have been widely reported in major publications such as the WSJ, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg, etc. and presented it fairly blandly if you will. I can't imagine how you can call that denigration. It is almost completely devoid of adjectives. The material itself is honest. Therefore, since the material is not even remotely personal but exclusively about business the notion of denigration is simply absurd. No one is even remotely defamed or ridiculed. I merely stated Chazen's compensation so I am even further bewildered over your suggestion that he has been denigrated along with Irani. Even so, I concede that the history section could be rewritten to include facts to support the notion that Irani contributed significantly to the company success over the years. Yes, and perhaps citing the use of the Boeing Business Jet by a retired CEO is not that important or even the question of who is actually running the company. Okay, Chazen runs the show.

I have invited constructive criticism time and time again as you will see from my entries and you might well review such comments (again, I'm afraid) by the other editors directed at me such as " get a life, stop wasting our time, it is time for you to go (and this from someone who has made little or no contributions (aside from perhaps hitting the undue button a few times) to the article! Frankly, the piece reads for the most part like a company publication and probably is largely derived from the Occidental Annual Report. It is true that some of the more disturbing and controversial chapters in the company history are included but in very little detail.

If I (instead of you, sir, with all due respect) could identify my own "agenda" let me just state that it is simply to give a full and true picture of this company so that the reader can really understand the history of Occidental. Pretending that it's all about barrels of oil and the geography of the operations, corporate platitudes and slogans, and not about real history with real consequences is short-sighted. Again, no one has been able to explain to me why legitimate news story items placed in Wikipedia represent a "hit job." Please educate me. However, use specifics if you please. Cowboy128 (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Cowboy128 (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxy Mediation/Another thought

Hello again. Just wanted to suggest you look at British Petroleum article and Tony Hayward article for comparison purposes.

The BP article is robust, comprehensive and allows people to understand significant issues surrounding this company and executives. Is there too much "negative" information about BP and Hayward? Particularly Hayward?

Thanks!Cowboy128 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)