User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:47, 28 May 2010

User:AGK/Notice User: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.

Hi

It's nice to hear from you again. I haven't been around much lately, and it doesn't look like that will change anytime soon. :(

Oh well.

TT — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About topic ban

I want to know if I have a right to participate in the Talk pages of the articles and to do minor edits, such as fill interwiki or uploading photo to the articles? And if I can participate in different votes, for example about templates, etc. --Ліонкінг (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the thirty days, you can have no such involvement. AGK 08:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undrestand, Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm still waiting for Your answer on my talk page. If You don't want to answer, please let me know. --Ліонкінг (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed. I've replied now. AGK 12:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. About the question. I want just ask You (as a more experienced user and as an administrator) if the actions of User:NovaSkola were normal. If You want, I can repeat the situation. I just want to know, f.e. after my ban can I act in his way, how he does, or it will be violation? Thanks --Ліонкінг (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but can I get an answer for my question!? It seems to me that You have forgot about me again:-) --Ліонкінг (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is Friday

I got the appeal ready and saved in a text file to post it. You said Friday tentatively so I wanted to ask you before acting. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still need a couple more days to finish reviewing your record. Is that okay? AGK 11:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks again. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found anything in my history that I need to be concerned with other than the 9 revert case and mentioning peoples nationalities? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't definitively make up my mind about your editing history. I think I'd have to hear what the other uninvolved editors have to say on the appeal thread about your editing before opining one way or another. AGK 18:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok. I will open a new section in AN [1] soon. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hello again AGK. Sorry for buzzing you all the time, but yet you've been the only admin I encountered willing to help editors. If you know others, pls redirect me :).

There are certain questions, that arise in my mind while editing on Wiki. One of them is about disputes and issues not directly described in rules. If from a dispute a question has occurred about regulations or a consensus could not be reached due to it, can it be taken to the Arb. Com.?

If a consensus cannot be reached about content by mediation, where should it be taken? If not, then how should it be solved?

I will surely have some more, when you have time to answer these.

Thanks a lot! Aregakn (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most administrators will be very eager to help if you only ask nicely! And your questions are certainly not a problem for me. Answering your questions detracts from some of the other unpleasant business I'd otherwise be sifting through on Wikipedia :). Arbitration is traditionally only for resolving problems with editor conduct; the Committee won't touch any request to have them rule on content. Sometimes they need to take into account article content (and whilst even that is contentious, I agree in full that it is necessary; see User:AGK/Arbitration and content). But no, a question about article content cannot be answered by ArbCom.

If the editors cannot agree on which of a number of legitimate versions of the article to use for a Wikipedia page, mediation should be pursued. That almost always works. If the editors are not sure which versions of the article are legitimate (as often happens in long-running disputes with a real-life dimension, such as protracted nationalist disagreements), then a wider audience should be pursued; Wikipedia:Requests for comment is usually the way to go.

I'm not sure what you mean about "a question about regulations", though; so I can't answer that part of the question, unless you will indulge me with a clarification. Hope this helps. Regards, AGK 23:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I'd read, request for comment is another instance to deal with disputes but one before mediation. The mediation can lead to nowhere sometimes for one or an other reason or if the mediation is impossible due to refusal of the other parties to participate. Then we come to a deadlock, I see...

OK, for regulations covering some aspects of editing is my current situation. I, you, they... whoever editors have a right and are encouraged to create images. Good, I'm for it! But when the issue comes to historical maps, it is VERY tricky. These kind of editor-works can easily be claimed an wp:or or wp:synth or anything that an encycopedia is not. We are not professionals in creating maps, especially historical. WP:OI was the only regulation I could find that somehow addresses this issue. It is said, that images (a general term) can be used in Wikipedia if they are referenced. In these boundaries I do not see anyhow that a historical map can be created for an encyclopedia by 1 editor, if not just taking a published map and redoing it without changing the controversial attributes of it. I see that many oppose this though they never explained how and why. They never "got to the point", so to say...

This idea of historical maps being quite different from the current political or geographical maps in their concept have, as to me, proven that there has to be a specific regulation in editor-created historical maps' aspect. Can the issue, as a general issue, be taken to ArbCom, discussed and a ruling that will be something like guidance, a regulation, be made? Aregakn (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On failed mediations: If a party does not participate in a mediation, he usually forfeits his right to contest the disputed content. Consensus-building only works when people are willing to talk their disagreement through. On original images: Interesting question! I've never came across a problem with POV-warring through image manipulation. I'd imagine it's a quite subtle thing to catch, but presumably any image uploaded must be based on a map in a reliable source. So if the accuracy of an image is contested, the matter can be adjudicated by referring to a scholarly or other source and determining whether the editor's image is in line with the map uploaded by the Wikipedia. I would also imagine that to contest the accuracy of an image with an editor who refuses to discuss the prospect that his upload might constitute an original image, one would seek assistance at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. On ArbCom: If what I've said answers your question, then I can't see any gap in policy in this area, so no, the matter couldn't be taken to Arbitration; and in any case, the Committee don't pass policy by dictum so I doubt they would be able to assist. If there is indeed policy governing the kind of problems with image that you describe, but there remains a specific problem or dispute over such images, then Arbitration is potentially an option for resolving it, yes. AGK 10:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Maybe I should try the NPOV board too then. The problem is, that to get to a resolution of 1 dispute I have already spent more than 2 months and still it is not resolved because of some reasons I am not able to understand (yet). I have noticed many such potential maps and those maps are used in plenty of articles and templates or banners. I cannot see how it is possible to bring these issues up one by one... This is why I was wondering about ArbCom. Aregakn (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! OK, I wanted to wait a little longer before telling it, but I think it is enough. The above issue was connected to a mediation request I filed. The mediation takes us nowhere for one reason or an other. Can you please help? Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Historical map of the Roman Empire in the article "History of Georgia (country)". I have also applied for NPOV commenting where I was advised to take the issue to th OR board :) but commented by 1 editor. Aregakn (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to interfere, for two reasons. First, the mediator, User:Sunray, is persevering with discussion of the disputed issues and has indicated that he believe that more progress can be made. I happily defer to his judgment. Second, Committee mediators work independently. It could be regarded as unwarranted interference in a mediator's case by the chairperson if I were to become involved. If you are concerned by the direction or progress of the mediation, I would ask that you first take it up with Sunray. AGK 00:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray had asked to wait for the 2nd party first. I did agree. It took long and I restarted. He refused to discuss issues with me when I asked him and decided to even ignorng my requests totally. He moved to closure where, I cannot say why, he did not concentrate on any single issue I brough up with the each message there was a new issue opened by him when the old ones were not addressed. As a summary, none of the issues to be mediated were addressed properly. Also possible because of the refusal of the 2nd party to participate. Iberieli's claim of no time for med-exams is not relevant, as the whole semester is soon to be over. What could you advice considering these 2? Aregakn (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advices. I've initiated discussons on the OR and NPOV notification boards as well. Regards Aregakn (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly Massacre

Hi, AGK. I read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, thank you. But why you blocked only me? Opponents have done the same thing.

Brandmeister [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
Grandmaster [7], [8], [9]
John Vandenberg [10]

And can you help us in Khojaly Massacre? It seems to me, it is not a problem between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is a problem between Azerbaijan and USA.

Thanks in advance. Divot (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, John Vandenberg reverted more than that: 1, 2, 3. Divot against three editors. This does not excuse Divot though. Ionidasz (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one went as far as making 11 reverts. When Divot saw that his personal interpretation of the document (which is currently included in the article) did not have any support of other editors, he should have sought dispute resolution, as he was more than once recommended at talk of the article, but Divot chose to continue edit warring. Eventually it was Brandmeister who took the issue to WP:RSN, but even then Divot would not wait for the outcome of the discussion, and kept on reverting. And reverting an obvious SPA sock like this one [11] [12] does not even count as a revert. The IPs in this range are often used for edit warring in AA articles, it appears to be one of the banned users. Maybe this page needs permanent semi-protection. Grandmaster 05:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 67.81.190.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) most likely belongs to the banned user Hetoum I (talk · contribs). Similar IP 67.85.7.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) pointing at the same geolocation was blocked as a suspected sock. It is very curious that this IP popped up to support Divot in this edit war. Grandmaster 05:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"When Divot saw that his personal interpretation of the document ". Sorry, but this is not true. Look here (Marshal Bagramyan, Ionidasz and Kansas Bear messages). You can ask checkusers about 67.81.190.223 and other IP'S. Divot (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster: I hesitate to punish one editor because he is a minority. That is, unless anybody actually pursued the assistance of an uninvolved administrator when they saw an edit war developing? (Diffs requested if so.) AGK 10:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this was taken to WP:RSN, and not by the warring party, i.e. Divot. He never tried to follow any WP:DR procedures, instead he made 11 rvs. That is way too many by any standards. Note that he was the only one reverting to that version (if we don't count the IP). I don't see any genuine attempt on his part to resolve the dispute the way prescribed by the rules. As for the IP, 70.21.250.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same person. Same location, but different ISP. It is going around and mass reverting pages right now. Grandmaster 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was hardly edit warring with himself :). I repeat my question as to whether anybody requested administrator assistance. AGK 13:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I only asked for admin intervention after the 11th rv by Divot. I thought that after Brandmeister took the issue to WP:RSN after Divot practically refused to do so, the issue would get resolved there. I know, I probably should have asked for admin intervention sooner. But I hoped that the issue would get resolved without the need for administrative measures. Grandmaster 13:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is related to what exactly Divot wrote. Is it that Grandmaster tries to say he wasn't involved in edit warring or that acting in a group makes him less volnarable? I'd say the opposite. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another curious account. It was created on 30 April, and mostly supports Aregakn on various talks and votings. Strange coincidence. Grandmaster 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No point in making an empty allusion to sock puppetry. File an SPI report and have it looked into. There's an unhelpful tendancy amongst the contributors to contested topic areas to sit back and accept things like sock puppetry, POV-pushers, and whatnot; this is not how a collaborative project works. AGK 15:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'm going to file an SPI request, there's a whole new bunch of IPs and SPAs. It is becoming tiresome and timewasting though, because as soon as a sock is banned, the sockmaster creates a new bunch. Moreschi used to block such quacking accounts on spot, but he is not active now. Grandmaster 16:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment concerning Grandmaster following statment: Note that he was the only one reverting to that version, the reason I did not revert was because I disagreed with both versions. The one by Grandmaster, John Vandenberg and Brandmeister used the term adopted, which the original document does not claim, the one by Divot was unsatisfying by the way it presents the info. One version was innacurate Grandmaster et al.), the other unencyclopedic (Divots version). I will ask a RFC starting from Thuesday, when I have time. Ionidasz (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Grandmaster will be more careful. It's true the IP is suspicious, but the IP reverted an info added by another not less suspicious IP, see here, which starts with: Azerbaijanis were exposed to genocide many times in twentieth century. When two suspicious IPs make controversial reverts or add controversial materials, it's best to revert to a version prior to the controversial edits, not revert to the other suspicious IP as Grandmaster did. It causes needless conflicts. Ionidasz (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was right by reverting the IP. He removed a large section of sourced info. And so did you. Please discuss and reach consensus first. I removed the word "genocide", the rest remains. As for the IP, I filed an SPI request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I. Grandmaster 06:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be very serious. I should reach concensus to remove a material which was added by a suspicious IP address? The material was not sufficiently sourced, first the many massacres still remain controversial, the implication of the 366 regiment directly in the massacres remain controversial, the claim of 12,000 killed remains controversial, most sources claim 3,000. And above all, there is no evidences that any of those incidences were because they were Muslim. They were territorial conflicts. Ionidasz (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing controversial about 366th, it is a fact that they participated in the massacre. HRW and many other sources confirm that, and even Russian military command admits that. I remember the attempt to remove that info from the article about Khojaly. But I think this is not the place to discuss content issues. We should continue at relevant article talks. Grandmaster 20:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove what on the Khojali article, in that article it say they were involved in the attack, not massacre. Ionidasz (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I have just realised that I never addressed the original enquiry from Divot. My answer is this: if you think that the conduct of another editor is at fault, submit an evidenced complaint to Arbitration enforcement. I make no comment on the specific examples you cite, preferring to reserve comment for official noticeboard wherein the editor being discussed can submit a rebuttal. Regards, AGK 00:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WABC (AM) mediation

Sorry for the delay in responding, just got up here an hour ago on the East Coast of the US. I personally see no disagreement. I have even removed the information from the page (leaving just the image), but that seemed to be unacceptable for the user in question. They just want it gone and they are calling on their "13 years of experience as an engineer" as proof, well that is WP:OR. I readily admit I can't back my claim up with proof, cause I found out the information on a radio chat board...not the world's most reliable source and hence why I didn't mark it. I wasn't going to find anything on any other source, cause really, I think the NY Times or NY Post have more to talk about than WABC Radio running an HD2 signal. So, yeah, I don't have sources either, but that doesn't make me (as I am currently being branded) "unreasonable", that makes the other guy unreasonable. Their "nothing or nothing, cause I know what I am talking about even though it is OR" is unreasonable. So, I am just going about my business and letting them mediate. I want no part in it and I do agree, I feel it is in bad faith. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just lighting this up again, since it got covered up by another talk page message. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I've been focussing mainly on the larger thread above this one, and forgot to reply to your message. Ultimately, unsourced statements have no place in our articles, and can be removed. Needless to say, he cannot (cf WP:SELFCITING, second to last sentence) use his own education or knowledge as a source. All else being equal, policy is on your side here, and this is a editor conduct, not an article content, problem—and can thus be referred to a project administrator. AGK 17:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been quite frankly astonished by Neutralhomer's behavior in a couple recent cases, despite having no interaction. In the case above, Neutralhomer was fighting to keep "HD2" whereas the other editor wanted to describe the issue more generically. Since no source was available for the specific HD2 assertion, the other editor was clearly in the right to defer to a more generic version. More concerning, however, is that Neutralhomer marked one of the edits (among his several in the edit war) as vandalism. Since he was not long ago in a lot of trouble for this type of behavior (see User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive6#Consequences), I think this needs a closer look and I've notified the administrators involved in the prior issue (see User_talk:Bwilkins#Neutralhomer_continuing_to_edit-war_and_mark_non-vandalism_as_vandalism for a bit of a summary). II | (t - c) 01:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although I have pretty much no interest in the article, I would appreciate it if you would comment on my reasoning when it comes to this particular article (above) and strike your statement that policy is on Neutralhomer's side if you agree with me, for clarity and future reference. If you don't agree, please explain. II | (t - c) 01:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user jumped the gun running to the adminship claiming I wasn't be "responsive". I just woke up from a nap. This user seems to be only out to get me blocked and not interested in talking about it when only allowing me an hour to respond to his/her talk page post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He might be referring to the fact that you haven't responded to the mediation request. AGK 10:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at the rfe page

[13] You ask Is his approach to article content at all problematic I can`t be bothered to dig out loads of diffs, but here are a few which will show you that his approach is problematic, The Hockey Stick Illusion WMC`s first edit there [14] his second [15] and his third [16] These few diffs mat give you an idea of just how problematic WMC is with regards to anything sceptical of AGW. mark nutley (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two diffs were unwise, but am curious about your view that adding a POV tag to an article whose POV is under dispute represents misbehavior. Would you consider this diff[17] "problematic" as well? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short Brigade: I am not sure if that question is directed at me or at Mark. I'm buess Mark, but if not, then I'm probably not the best person to ask; I hold that the addition of {{POV}} tags to an article is about the most POINTY thing an editor can do without his conduct becoming a problem. AGK 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The POV tag was added purely as a disruptive measure i believe, after he added the first load of junk and then reverted it back he added the tag, if he felt the article was not wp:npov then he should have added the tag only, not the junk beforehand. And i believe the edit comment shows he was being disruptive. mark nutley (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much...

...redaction. The fact that SV has added problematic edits and has not substantially discussed them is very relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AGK's redaction. This needs to stay focused on WMC. And besides, I reviewed all the talk page discussions about the FS article on the various talk pages and noticeboards, so I have a good understanding of the full dynamics of the situation. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slim's actions may very well be relevant to an evaluation of William's conduct. But the comment was not trying to cite one editor's conduct as the reason why the other had to also revert. Nor was it making any other conceivable argument relating to SV's conduct. Instead it was using that tired old excuse: "but she did it too!" If SlimVirgin's edits really are problematic, file a complaint on the noticeboard; we may as well scrutinise some others as well as William. AGK 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You read this very different from me. I don't see a "she too" there. What I see is the argument if an established and experienced editor brings in quite problematic edits into an area that already is highly contentious, such a reaction is to be expected. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mhrm, I still don't agree. Guettarda said that "No one is supposed to coddle established editors who behave that badly, not WMC, not anyone else". This is true. But no coddling was necessary. It hasn't been established that SV did introduce plagiarised content (to establish so would require, like I said, a separate AE thread); and whether or not SV reverted is immaterial, because there is never a license to re-revert in a contentious topic area except where a very clear consensus on the disputed content was recently formed. On balance, all that I'm seeing is an un-evidenced accusation against an editor who is not the subject of the thread; I did (and do) not support such a statement standing, and would refer Guettarda to open a new thread to examine SV's conduct if he does indeed find it problematic.

Too often in these kind of topic areas do editors (and this is not directed at you) think it is acceptable to say "Oh, but User:X did far worse!" and expect that both this will be taken as a legitimate excuse for misconduct and that the comment will be left unchallenged. On both counts, such is not the case. AGK 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your final point is appropriate. I hope that you will be willing to see that both "sides" do this, not just WMC. I've tried to impress upon some of my colleagues that when outsiders see mudflinging they only see the misbehavior and don't much care who started it. (And when they do care, they very rarely look at the background in detail but instead make an evaluation based on their pre-existing views toward the parties involved.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do recognise that William is not the only one at fault here, and indeed said as much in a comment I recently made (see last paragraph) in which I finally came down on one side in the topic-ban proposal. That advice to your peers was well-given. AGK 23:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Unsurprisingly, I disagee with your conclusion. But I find William is quick to revert (a courtesy glance over his most recent contributions, filtered to show only mainspace edits, shows a lot of rollbacks particularly disappointing. Without looking at the (not provided) diffs I can't guess what you find problematic. But there are many many vandals in the Cl Ch area, and I would assert that is where those rollbaks come from. Can you find any of my rollbacks that are problematic? I have my "rollback rights" by grace not right; I have plenty of critics; I would be surprised if there were problems there, because no-one has ever brought that up before.

OK, I'll check. Here we go:

[18] - reverts vandalism.
[19] - ditto
[20] - ditto
[21] - a bit more interesting but yes, std skeptic nonsense
[22] - rvv
[23] - rvv

I got bored at that point. While I can accept that some of your points might be arguable, being actively blamed for reverting vandalism seems jsut a touch harsh.

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I meant to say 'revert' instead of 'rollback', and in fact I was referring to reversions which used the undo function, not rollback, and which were explicitly in relation to non-vandalism edits. I'll correct my statement presently. One thing that struck me (that I didn't touch on in my comments) when reviewing your editing history was that you never do misuse the rollback function; if ever your reversion is of good-faith content additions, you always leave an edit summary. So I can understand why you were annoyed upon perceiving that I had suggested you do otherwise. Regards, AGK 23:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having decided to stay around the house and relax, I've stupidly been editing on-and-off since this morning—instead of enjoying the sun. I'm going to sign off for the night, and unfortunately I won't be able to indulge in more leisure time tomorrow, so any further comments might not be answered very promptly. Just an advance warning, in case anybody cares. Night. AGK 23:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you do get round to correcting your error, please be sure to include some examples of use of "undo" that you consider problematic. Having to answer criticisms based on vagueness is rather Kafka-esque William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your fair and considerate contribution AGK. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: you'll notice there are a fair few editors - ZP5 is one, Cla68 another - who make no productive contributions whatsoever towards Cl Ch articles, but simply hang around kibitzing. If you wonder why the atmosphere is bad, the presence of such drones is definitely part of it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must qualify as an "uninvolved editor" by WMC's admission. Bitten once twice shy.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC apparently doesn't feel that taking an article to Good Article is a productive contribution. I've invited WMC to do the same thing to Watts Up With That that I and several other editors did with DeSmogBlog. I think a quick review of WMC's subsequent "contributions" to the Watts Up article would be very enlightening. Cla68 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us have told you that we would rather write good articles than Good Articles. The GA and FA criteria mostly relate to formatting rather than factual accuracy. For my own part I stopped being motivated by gold stars and check marks around third grade. If others are interested in such things I certainly have no objections; where they cross the line is in making veiled (or explicit) accusations that to do otherwise is tantamount to misbehavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All WMC, and you, if you're able and willing, need to do is improve Watts Up With That as good as you can get it, and I'll help take it through the Good Article process. Please check WMC's edits to that article and then hazard a guess as to if his edits seem designed to improve and expand the article. And yes, to do otherwise is unproductive and inappropriate, because I believe we are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia. I think that I can show that I have helped to improve the 'pedia, including in the climate change area. Cla68 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, not to work on the articles that you want us to work on, in the way you want us to work on them, is "unproductive and inappropriate"? That's an interesting perspective. Please remember the need to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to put words in my mouth, Short? I'm sure that wasn't really your intention. If you'll look at the Watts Up history, you'll see that you and WMC have been very active with that article, and your contributions are, of course, much appreciated. Unfortunately, in spite of all that activity, the article is still fairly short. I've tried to get things going on that article by adding a couple of paragraphs. Since you and WMC appear to be so interested in the topic, judging by the number of edits you all have made to it, I believe it's a safe assumption on my part that you both are interested in seeing the article expanded and improved. Am I wrong about that? Cla68 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. From time to time I have taken an interest in the article, just as I have with Richard Brautigan or Get Back or Nico -- all of which I have edited more than WUWT. Editing an article does not imply a lifetime commitment, or even necessarily a strong interest in the topic at hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and courtesy glance - you mean, "cursory", I presume William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. Thank you for so kindly pointing that out. AGK 19:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, a response. AGK 20:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Availability note: Won't be around much tomorrow. If I edit at all it will be late evening. Sorry in advance if my response to any messages are delayed. (I don't usually post these for such a short period of inactivity, but seemingly is too long an absence.) AGK 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

I've looked at some recent reverts, nothing obviously problematic shows up. Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#.40AGK. Perhaps you could be kind enough to back up your assertions with diffs? As you say, other tasks call: it is a sunny morning, and I would like to be out gardening. Instead I've just spent an hour that I regard as wasted responding to your charges William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting; I'm sure you'll get there. Meanwhile Why not rely just on conduct? TL;DR: Because some people know how to play the game. ArbCom should start catching up. - you should read your own essay sometime William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, if you have a question for AGK, could you please ask him without resorting to baiting? Cla68 (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I just noticed this little gem at the end here: Still waiting; I'm sure you'll get there. Do you go out of your way to be unpleasant, William, or do you naturally talk to people like that? AGK 19:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having for the first time been at the receiving end of your comments, William, I think I now understand better than ever precisely why your demeanour is difficult to handle. Try being nice for once; and if that doesn't appeal, don't be surprised when your colleagues throw you into the deep end at the first opportunity. AGK 19:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I'm not calling you a giant dick. But of course, it is different when you do it, no? Anyway, thanks for the diffs, I'll go off and look. I do hope they are worth my time William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm happy to have anything I say challenged. You never know: it might lead to my changing my mind on some point or another :). And with respect, your method of collaboration warrants such a title. AGK 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked, I've replied, no they weren't worth my time William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ a comment that simply astonishes me. AGK 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, it's not so hard to be nice when it comes to collaboration on an any article in WP. Anyonewho can't do it, IMO doesn't belong here. 06:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That was ironic. Still, you *almost* managed to sign your comment William M. Connolley (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that that was intentional :) AGK 09:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I thought he said you were a small dick and emphatically not a giant one? And not even you can argue that you don't get just a tiny bit dickish at times...next time when the sun is shining go out and garden. WP doesn't matter as much as the 38 types of edible produce growing outside my back door and a measured response tomorrow is better than snapping back today. --BozMo talk 12:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New MedCab member?

Hi, you may want to have a look thru http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ronk01 Especially : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy&action=historysubmit&diff=363812449&oldid=357050068 Best, Unomi (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific about your concerns, and could you outline the context to this comment? If I know what it is that you want me to look for then I can more firmly answer your comment. Regards, AGK 00:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An account that has 171 total edits and is 2 months old has accepted at least 2 mediation cases at once, right now. And the first thing he does on the Israel medcab case is suggest a title that has been discussed on the talkpage of the article already - one which has unmet arguments against it. I don't think jumping head first into an I/P discussion is appropriate for that account, at this time. Unomi (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding Brandmeister conduct

Hi AGK, I know you will be suggesting to file a report, but I don't feal like it. Divot reported it on Khojaly massacre. But this user makes no use of the talkpage. The last one is on the Karabakh Khanate. He initiated the revert war by this move. I initiated a discussion in the talkpage, see here, which he made no use of. See his misleading edit summary here. He claims to have refined and claims that the author does not say it. I doubt he actually have read it since that's what is said by the authors. Also, the new source he has used use both Turkic and Azerbaijanis, both in asterix, and nowhere it claims it was an Azeri Khanate. It claims that a Kajar ruler took control of it. See the entry of the dynasty Qajar dynasty. This is unacceptable, he can just revert without needing to even justify anything and by simply adding sources which do not support what he claims and remove those it seem he did not even read. I see on the Armenian-Azerbaijan page that he was previously topic-banned for 6 months, by his behavior it does not seem he has ever been restricted previously. Ionidasz (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said you wanted to wait "a couple of days"

but do you think you might consider popping round (I think you know where :) ) and opining? Others are suggesting it's well past sell by on a close ... it's been the better part of a day anyway I think, which should count for something. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you and others, and have commented on GS/CC/RE to that effect. Regards, AGK 22:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said, I'd rather not be the closer... but it will be closed before I go to bed this day, one way or another. Care for a turn in the barrel? ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (2)

There is another thread named "Hi" (#Hi), so I've appended '(2)' to this header for navigational purposes. AGK 22:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your concerns on the arbcom case request page. May I ask, how come you don't just ask Ryan Postlethwaite to remove you from the involved list? Although I do not think it was your intention you said to arbcom if they accept the case you will leave the wikipedia project, which is not in keeping with your recuse, making threats to leave. I am sure Ryan would remove your name as I think he just listed everyone who had anything to do with climate change even if they were not involved directly in drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC) -[reply]

I did not say that I will leave Wikipedia if the case is accepted. I remain open to the prospect that Arbitration may be the best route to pursue in relation to the climate change topic area. I said that if a "reminder to all parties" is issued, as often is the case with Arbitration decisions", and that I am at that point a listed party, I would be embarrassed enough to stop editing. We cannot escape the fact that to be listed as a party to a RFAR is a black mark against one's record, and Ryan, having decided that those with experience in this topic area are wrong and that Arbitration is what is now needed, seems to have forgotten or ignored this. AGK 22:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Well a reminder to all parties is pretty predictable outcome and I find it difficult to see how arbcom could avoid passing such a remedy in a case involving so many people. Although as an uninvolved administrator you would not be an editor of the articles, so it may not apply to you, depending on how the remedy is worded. I do however, understand your position and where you are coming from with regard to not having a black mark against your name. If I were you I would have just been "bold" and removed my name from person's involved or at least requested Ryan do so. I hope you understand where I am coming from, I see your comment as framed as influencing arbcom to reject the case while recusing with possibly profound effects on the wikipedia community who have to endure climate change drama. It is sad to see how many good people are getting their feelings hurt because of this climate change madness on this encyclopedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recused as a Arbitration clerk because I have prior involvement in the events leading up to the request; that shouldn't influence anything. As for my statement, that only expressed my displeasure at being listed as a party, and I didn't intend it to reflect on the merits of the request (and indeed I specified that I had nothing to say on the merits of the request at this point). I intend to make a fuller statement in the next few days so any perceptions about which way I am leaning should hopefully be dispelled at that juncture. You make sound points but I must disagree with your suggestion that my comment would influence the committee; as I said before, I explicitly said I had no comment on the merits of the request at this point. AGK 22:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I was cheered up by your appearance at those pages. But to have not one but two cases started seems... wrong. I really can't see what Ryan was thinking. Please persevere at the RE pages, I think you are doing a lot of good. Fresh eyes help enormously. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice of you to say :). I don't intend to drop out; the prospect of this proceeding to Arbitration doesn't irk me. I'm fine with the drama. But being named as a party really gets my goat. I know that Ryan means well. In the past he has usually started Arbitration requests where they are needed, but here I can't shake off the perception that he has became involved in a situation he hasn't fully looked into. There is a lot of material other than the first RFAR thread that needs to be covered in order to gain a full understanding of the state of the CC subject area. We'll see what happens, I guess. AGK 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello, i can`t manage to file a new request for mediation. Can you guide me please? iadrian (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're all set: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lunca de Jos. For reference, the guide to filing a request for mediation is at Wikipedia:RFM/HOW2. Regards, AGK 18:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

News and notes: New puzzle globe, feature for admins, Israel's "Wikipedia Bill", unsourced bios declining

WikiProject report: WikiProject Saints

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hall problem

I thought you might want to know a few updates on the case:

Two parties had a letter to the editor published in the American Statistician regarding an error in the Morgan et al. paper, which is pivotal to the case. It should move the case along, but...
One party refuses to have a real-time mediation on IRC, Skype, etc. which I think would be very helpful.

Andrevan@ 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom/GA1

Doing it or not? Make ya mind up :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a busy bee, both IRL and with this fiasco. Got a free day today, so I'll get it done in the next couple of hours. Sorry for the delay! AGK 10:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Schürrer

You are a great reviewer i have put up an article for possible GA-status. Could you review it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ÅlandÖland (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your advise

Noting your comments on AE, AGK, I have to inquire why would you advise someone banned from doing so on such matters to file an AE request? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that he was banned. AGK 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough; but you are aware now (see the link to the decision on my comment)? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I am aware now, as you have just told me. I agree with your comments at AE, and I certainly would have advised Piotrus differently than I did had I then been aware that he was topic-banned so. AGK 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]