Jump to content

User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
597,462 edits
m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 6d) to User talk:AGK/Archive/59.
Line 67: Line 67:
Rufus Philpot
Rufus Philpot
[[User:Rufusbass1|Rufusbass1]] ([[User talk:Rufusbass1|talk]]) 22:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Rufusbass1|Rufusbass1]] ([[User talk:Rufusbass1|talk]]) 22:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

== R&I Arbcom clerk question ==

Isn't Captain Occam a party? Shouldn't his posts in Workshop be moved from the "others" to the "parties" section? — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:32, 19 June 2010

User:AGK/NoticeUser:AGK/NoticeTemplate loop detected: User:AGK

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.

Monty Hall

Please refer the case to another mediator or to Arbitration. It has started to get nasty and the participants' unwillingness to try to a different mediation format is too frustrating. Andrevan@ 02:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Andrevan is referring to me when he talks about 'unwillingness to try to a different mediation format'. I believe that a very important principle of WP is involved here. The right of any editor to decline off-wiki meditation without disadvantage and without giving a reason. The reasons for this opinion are given in full in the Mediation Committee policy talk page [oldid=364822851#Should_editors_be_compelled_to_engage_in_private_mediation
It is of concern to me that, apart from a brief response by Andrevan, no one has commented in my opinion. Is this because nobody cares, or is it because the mediators form there own policy elsewhere? Your input would be welcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi to you both. For whatever it's worth, Andrevan, I don't see any disadvantage to an on-wiki discussion (other than in those few instances where several people are posting comments to the page at the same time, perhaps resulting in edit conflicts). Consensus-building is rarely instant, so real-time media seems to be solving a problem that I would say does not exist. Your efforts on the mediation thus far have been exemplary, especially in light of the complex nature of the Monty Hall problem dispute, and it saddens me to see you feel compelled to abandon the dispute. Thank you, in any case, for all your work to date.

    Martin: Each mediator forms his or her own approach to mediation, as described at WP:MC/P#What is mediation?. As for the question of holding discussion off-wiki, I am of the opinion that in most cases to do so would be ideologically wrong (though as a frequent user of IRC, e-mail, Skype, and other RT media, I certainly see the benefits of doing so); but the committee's policy certainly does provide for it at WP:MC/P#When should a mediation be held confidentially?. At this point I will request input from the other mediators on the dispute on the committee mailing list, to see where everybody thinks we should go from here. AGK 17:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I would welcome a full discussion of this topic on the appropriate page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan now has withdrawn as a mediator of the Monty Hall problem article so I no longer have any direct involvement with this issue. However, I still feel strongly that a very important point of WP policy is at stake here. What is concerning me is that, despite giving detailed reasons why editors should be able to decline off-wiki mediation on the relevant talk page, and adding my proposed change to the policy to the policy page, and your contacting the mediators, no one has commented (apart from Andrevan's original remarks about the specific MHP case). I would like to think that this is because everyone agrees with me and my policy change has been warmly welcomed and fully accepted but I fear this is not the case. Can you help? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible?

I have a suspicion that certain editors and Anon IPs are merely socks. The resulting edits are over the same articles and are the same edits. Could you take a look at these editors and give me your opinion? Thanks.

  • Theturks2009[1]
  • Karamankaraman[2]. Did not start editing until after Theturks2009 was blocked for 31 hrs on June 9th.
  • 77.83.173.88[3]
  • 88.233.71.133[4]
  • 212.156.179.144[5]

--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please file a sockpuppet investigations request if you think your suspicions have merit. At the moment I don't really want to take the time to look into this in detail, and in any case the matter is probably best evaluated by the more expert folks at SPI. Regards, AGK 18:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Request Status Update

Ok, it has been over 3 weeks since the Epinephrine case has been accepted for the mediation comittee and it hasn't been assigned yet. So what happens now?--WikiDonn (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have many free mediators at the moment, which is why recently accepted requests are being progressed to active mediation less promptly. I'll ping the mailing list with an urgent request for any free committee members to take the case, but I can't promise anything because our mediators are volunteers just like you and I. Sorry for the delay thus far, and thanks for your patience going on. Regards, AGK 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. By the way, is it true that "policy does provide for immediate deferral to arbitration when the mediation process is deliberately ignored"? Or where does it say that articles can be edited during mediation? --WikiDonn (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Reversion of my edit to the Mediation Committee /Policy page.

AGK, you reverted my edit to that page despite the fact that I posted a long and detailed justification on the associated talk page on 28 May in order to start a discussion on the subject. Having got no response (apart from that by Andrevan concerning the specific case of The Monty Hall problem article) I decided to be bold and make the changes to the project page on 29 May. There were no objections to my change, maybe because nobody had noticed it.

I do not believe that I have acted improperly in any way yet you have reverted my change without any discussion. I would ask you to reinstate it, at least while the subject is discussed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had not realised that you had started that thread in conjunction with your addition to the policy page. In short, the committee governs its own policies; outside edits need the consensus of the active mediators. You need to get their agreement before making such a critical addition to the committee policy page. I don't mean to be a pain with this, but policy pages for 'official'-type processes such as formal mediation need to be treated with extra sensitivity. AGK 15:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully decline to restore the edit at this point. Where official policy pages are concerned, the onus is on the person promulgating the change, not the defender of the status quo, to prove the existence of consensus. AGK 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather worrying development. You are saying that a particular group of editors, who have agreed to act as mediators, now have the power to ignore outside editors and stick to a policy where those who have requested mediation are required to engage in off-wiki mediation. This is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Where would you suggest I go now? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm saying that if you want to change policy, you need to get the agreement of all those whose work is directly regulated with that policy. This applies doubly so when you are changing this policy in response to it not being in accordance with your personal opinion and thereby putting you into a minority in a current mediation case. I think you're fine to proceed with discussion on the talk page (though, like I said, you'll need a wider audience; do you want me to ask the other committee members to comment on the talk page or not?), but do it a little more quietly and maybe cut back on mouthing off about cabals and "worrying developments". AGK 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if you would ask the mediation committee to comment but I think this subject deserves much wider consideration.
What is your opinion on what I say on the talk page? There are many reasons why it is not right for editors to be pressurised into off-wiki discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bio deletion

Hi there-I am informed that as an Administrator here you can either restore or merely post on my User Page any deleted Bio material that was previously on Wiki..That would be great Rufus Philpot Rufusbass1 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R&I Arbcom clerk question

Isn't Captain Occam a party? Shouldn't his posts in Workshop be moved from the "others" to the "parties" section? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Monty Hall

Please refer the case to another mediator or to Arbitration. It has started to get nasty and the participants' unwillingness to try to a different mediation format is too frustrating. Andrevan@ 02:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Andrevan is referring to me when he talks about 'unwillingness to try to a different mediation format'. I believe that a very important principle of WP is involved here. The right of any editor to decline off-wiki meditation without disadvantage and without giving a reason. The reasons for this opinion are given in full in the Mediation Committee policy talk page [oldid=364822851#Should_editors_be_compelled_to_engage_in_private_mediation
It is of concern to me that, apart from a brief response by Andrevan, no one has commented in my opinion. Is this because nobody cares, or is it because the mediators form there own policy elsewhere? Your input would be welcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi to you both. For whatever it's worth, Andrevan, I don't see any disadvantage to an on-wiki discussion (other than in those few instances where several people are posting comments to the page at the same time, perhaps resulting in edit conflicts). Consensus-building is rarely instant, so real-time media seems to be solving a problem that I would say does not exist. Your efforts on the mediation thus far have been exemplary, especially in light of the complex nature of the Monty Hall problem dispute, and it saddens me to see you feel compelled to abandon the dispute. Thank you, in any case, for all your work to date.

    Martin: Each mediator forms his or her own approach to mediation, as described at WP:MC/P#What is mediation?. As for the question of holding discussion off-wiki, I am of the opinion that in most cases to do so would be ideologically wrong (though as a frequent user of IRC, e-mail, Skype, and other RT media, I certainly see the benefits of doing so); but the committee's policy certainly does provide for it at WP:MC/P#When should a mediation be held confidentially?. At this point I will request input from the other mediators on the dispute on the committee mailing list, to see where everybody thinks we should go from here. AGK 17:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I would welcome a full discussion of this topic on the appropriate page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan now has withdrawn as a mediator of the Monty Hall problem article so I no longer have any direct involvement with this issue. However, I still feel strongly that a very important point of WP policy is at stake here. What is concerning me is that, despite giving detailed reasons why editors should be able to decline off-wiki mediation on the relevant talk page, and adding my proposed change to the policy to the policy page, and your contacting the mediators, no one has commented (apart from Andrevan's original remarks about the specific MHP case). I would like to think that this is because everyone agrees with me and my policy change has been warmly welcomed and fully accepted but I fear this is not the case. Can you help? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible?

I have a suspicion that certain editors and Anon IPs are merely socks. The resulting edits are over the same articles and are the same edits. Could you take a look at these editors and give me your opinion? Thanks.

  • Theturks2009[6]
  • Karamankaraman[7]. Did not start editing until after Theturks2009 was blocked for 31 hrs on June 9th.
  • 77.83.173.88[8]
  • 88.233.71.133[9]
  • 212.156.179.144[10]

--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please file a sockpuppet investigations request if you think your suspicions have merit. At the moment I don't really want to take the time to look into this in detail, and in any case the matter is probably best evaluated by the more expert folks at SPI. Regards, AGK 18:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Request Status Update

Ok, it has been over 3 weeks since the Epinephrine case has been accepted for the mediation comittee and it hasn't been assigned yet. So what happens now?--WikiDonn (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have many free mediators at the moment, which is why recently accepted requests are being progressed to active mediation less promptly. I'll ping the mailing list with an urgent request for any free committee members to take the case, but I can't promise anything because our mediators are volunteers just like you and I. Sorry for the delay thus far, and thanks for your patience going on. Regards, AGK 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. By the way, is it true that "policy does provide for immediate deferral to arbitration when the mediation process is deliberately ignored"? Or where does it say that articles can be edited during mediation? --WikiDonn (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Reversion of my edit to the Mediation Committee /Policy page.

AGK, you reverted my edit to that page despite the fact that I posted a long and detailed justification on the associated talk page on 28 May in order to start a discussion on the subject. Having got no response (apart from that by Andrevan concerning the specific case of The Monty Hall problem article) I decided to be bold and make the changes to the project page on 29 May. There were no objections to my change, maybe because nobody had noticed it.

I do not believe that I have acted improperly in any way yet you have reverted my change without any discussion. I would ask you to reinstate it, at least while the subject is discussed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had not realised that you had started that thread in conjunction with your addition to the policy page. In short, the committee governs its own policies; outside edits need the consensus of the active mediators. You need to get their agreement before making such a critical addition to the committee policy page. I don't mean to be a pain with this, but policy pages for 'official'-type processes such as formal mediation need to be treated with extra sensitivity. AGK 15:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully decline to restore the edit at this point. Where official policy pages are concerned, the onus is on the person promulgating the change, not the defender of the status quo, to prove the existence of consensus. AGK 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather worrying development. You are saying that a particular group of editors, who have agreed to act as mediators, now have the power to ignore outside editors and stick to a policy where those who have requested mediation are required to engage in off-wiki mediation. This is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Where would you suggest I go now? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm saying that if you want to change policy, you need to get the agreement of all those whose work is directly regulated with that policy. This applies doubly so when you are changing this policy in response to it not being in accordance with your personal opinion and thereby putting you into a minority in a current mediation case. I think you're fine to proceed with discussion on the talk page (though, like I said, you'll need a wider audience; do you want me to ask the other committee members to comment on the talk page or not?), but do it a little more quietly and maybe cut back on mouthing off about cabals and "worrying developments". AGK 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if you would ask the mediation committee to comment but I think this subject deserves much wider consideration.
What is your opinion on what I say on the talk page? There are many reasons why it is not right for editors to be pressurised into off-wiki discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bio deletion

Hi there-I am informed that as an Administrator here you can either restore or merely post on my User Page any deleted Bio material that was previously on Wiki..That would be great Rufus Philpot Rufusbass1 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R&I Arbcom clerk question

Isn't Captain Occam a party? Shouldn't his posts in Workshop be moved from the "others" to the "parties" section? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcticocean&oldid=369077113"