User talk:Arcticocean

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)

As far as I can tell there is only "broad support" for some sort of change, not for the specific changes you were suggesting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize you removed my previous post, it's your own talk page and all, but still this is an important issue and I think it's important that editors are kept informed of current developments. So basically I wanted to know if you have proceeded to the "floating the proposal on the Committee mailing lists" stage. If so can we get a notification about this floating on one of the Arb pages somewhere, as well as some kind of transparent or semi-transparent executive summary of how that discussion is going? If not, then the AE discussion should probably be closed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's quite fair. I haven't raised the issue with the others on the committee, and on reflection I have decided to not do so in the immediate future, because I want to see where the proposal goes from here - without arbitrator direction. The enforcement process is within the community's purview, albeit subject to significant ArbCom oversight, and I'm not sure it would be well-received for me to initiate such a serious change in a quasi-official capacity. Looking at the WT:A/R thread, I note that another editor has proposed an identical change, and that many other editors have participated in the discussion there; my hope is that the proposal will continue on its own. However, if it doesn't, I'll return to it and see what, if anything, I need to do. Regards, AGK [•] 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I closed out the proposal because the discussion was starting to go off the path. I think there were some great comments gathered to start the ball rolling. I'm hoping some discussions with the involvement with ARBCOM can lead to some improvements on case handling at AE. --WGFinley (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, AGK [•] 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AUSC Stats

Hello, Anthony. Will you be updating the AUSC stats with your script? If you are too busy, I can probably take over again (although I do it manually). Please let me know. Thanks -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Avi. There was some confusion last month over whether the statistics ran from month to month, or from the date of last publication until the date of publication of the present stats. This has been resolved, so I'm happy to update for this month and for November, although it might take a couple of days until I can get around to this. I'm happy to do so soon, because if you're running them manually it's a little unfair :). Best, AGK [•] 19:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I may be unable to get to them for a few days more. AGK [•] 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem; I'm doing it today. -- Avi (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeking Editor Assistance

Hi! I found your in the list at WP:ASSIST and I think you probably have had experience dealing with this kind of scenarios before. I recently started working on the station articles of Singapore's MRT Network and got into a roadblock with some editors who have somehow adopted pet articles and have been populating them with original research which contravenes WP:5PILLARS. Much of it is about the clean up edits I have done in relation to "half height platform screen doors" which constitutes orignal research and type of citation sources. See examples: Cleanup edit & Original.

I left a couple of messages on Lee480's talkpage but it's somehow getting ignored. Another user Lucas1998 left me a message on my talkpage as well. It seems to me that I'm dealing with kids who have no understanding on how wikipedia works and think they can populate articles with stuff they have been sharing on some train forum which they are members of. Any advice on how to deal with them? The articles I have been working on so far haven't been near WP:3RR but I think this will happen soon. Thank you! - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 05:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not wish to comment on the specific dispute, but I think I can give some general guideance. Wikipedia content unquestionably must adhere to our content policy, but difficulty arises when there is confusion or dispute about how policy applies in specific cases within our articles. Theoretically, you would edit the page so that it adheres fully to our policy on no original research and neutrality, but I would counsel you to ask for more views on the content, because it may be the case that your reading of policy is not quite correct. It seems to me that Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard may be a good place to go to. If some editors there agree with your assessment, then you would have a more solid basis on which to re-make your previous edits, and to deal with these editors should they subsequently revert you (again). I hope this is helpful. Regards, AGK [•] 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. The editors involved have agreed to refrain from adding original research. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 17:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxy Revisions/Mediation

Hello AGK,

Just checking in on the proposed mediation of the Oxy page.

Best,

Cowboy128 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Since my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occidental Petroleum, I have stepped down as Chair of the Mediation Committee. Please direct your comment to Wgfinley (talk · contribs · email). Thanks, AGK [•] 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Workshop temporarily closed

See here for details. Thought I would give you a heads up. Feel free to modify or overturn the action if you see fit. Best, NW (Talk) 05:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy note, and for your vigilence. I fully support your decision. Regards, AGK [•] 13:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi AGK. I am trying to clarify a question for me these days. Could you please have a look at this thread. It seems to me there is some problem in proficiency of dealing with situation where WP is being used as a vehicle for ethnic conflict. Questioning reliability of a source or judging about its biasedness based on mere ethnicity criterion is something very new for me in WP... I would appreciate your opinion. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I would prefer to not become involved in this discussion. Regards, AGK [•] 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AE vs. amendment

I appreciate your suggestion about addressing the matter at AE instead of in an amendment, but my decision to raise it as a possible amendment is based on advice given by arbitrators and administrators. In addition to the diffs from Jclemens I posted in my response to you in the amendment thread, EdJohnston has warned us before [1] that it's a bad idea to raise requests related to R&I at AE. Even though he points out the advice is not compulsory, I definitely have had the experience that involvement at AE about R&I is strongly discouraged as long as my topic ban is in effect. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. By way of an explanation of my comment, in my view we must always establish whether an amendment or clarification could be better handled within a community forum. I understand that you have been directed to contact the Committee directly with this issue, and in any case I would certainly not criticise you for submitting such an amendment request, but I remain unconvinced that this cannot be handled as an enforcement action. However, I will reconsider your request when my colleagues have had a chance to review the thread, and it could be that we must handle this directly. Irrespective of the content or phraseology of Mathsci's comments at the amendment page, I would counsel you to be careful in your participation in that thread going forward, because I imagine we will take a dim view of unprofessionalism from you, Mathsci, or Captain Occam (as I am sure you do not need reminded!). Regards, AGK [•] 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have slightly reworded my explanation at the amendment thread for clarity. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci's now brought the issue to AE himself. [2] I'm sure AE doesn't want to see two threads at once about the same dispute, but maybe this one will be sufficient to handle it, since his hands seem clearly "unclean" here. In any case, if the current AE thread can't resolve it, do you think that would mean this is better handled by Arbcom? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:35, 10 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, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Undomania

Hello! Would you send me the text of this article? INSAR (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read the deleted content, I decline to provide the text. AGK [•] 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Echigo Mole

So is this user banned or not? And if not, what right does Mathsci have to remove or strike edits that he believes (on no apparent grounds) to have been made by them? 94.196.128.205 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)