Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:54, 21 February 2011

Note: If I left a message on your talk page, I'll reply there. If you leave one here, I'll reply here. User:AGK/Notice

Monty Hall Problem Mediation

Yo! How's about we get back into it? If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would read some stuff I've posted here, which I think brings every dispute into focus, and shows that both styles of solutions from the reliable sources solve the same exact problem statement, meeting all mathematic and Misplaced Pages requirements. The sections are very brief, so far containing only my input. I am not implying any other editor agrees, but I think this is good, understandable, and useful stuff. Glkanter (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll catch up with Sunray and then get the mediation running again. AGK 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Friendly reminder that we've been on an unannounced hiatus for some time. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The time I do have available to spend on the MHP mediation is at the moment being used up in participating in internal MedCom discussions about this case. It is going nowhere and none of us can decide what to do about that. I would be grateful if the parties would be patient during this delay. When/if we resume, I will respond to your e-mails if I have anything constructive to add then. For now, in reply to your question about whether I find them helpful: I don't know because I haven't been reading them (other than a skim) because of the temporary pause that is in place wrt the MHP. When it is time to read them, these rules might be of help: 1) less is more, especially by e-mail; 2) if I have nothing to say to an e-mail, I won't reply - but if I find an e-mail helpful, I will always reply. Regards, AGK 00:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As an active participating editor in the MHP mediation, I am taken aback that discussions and decisions are going on without any notifications whatsoever. I will be greatly disappointed if no further input is sought from the participating editors prior to decisions being made. Glkanter (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Even in the absence of the mediators, I think some aspects of the dispute have become very clear. Perhaps some of the ideas that have been developed and refined by the editors that have invested substantial amounts of time in an effort to make the dispute easier to understand would help in your deliberations. I think its telling that there are no more than 5 sources who are critical of the simple solutions. Of those 5, I think its debatable whether any of those is actually making the claims that are being argued by the loyal opposition. Rick Block has prepared a table on the mediation talk page that shows those 5, out of about 50 sources in the table. Plus countless hundreds (thousands) of other sources. Only *at most* 5 are critical. That is not a significant minority view. And it should not be the dominant view of the current article. But it is. The whole thing has been a tempest in a teapot. Nothing more than GAMESMANSHIP and WIKILAWYERING. Glkanter (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Hello? Test. Test, one two. <tap> <tap> Testing. Is this thing on?

C'mon AGK, I've laid the whole thing out for you guys. Alls ya gotta do is *read* some if it.

Is there anybody in there? Posted by Glkanter (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this (although I guess it's a moot point now). I usually miss threads that are farther up my talk page than the rest of the active ones. In future, if I seem to be missing something, edit the whole page and move it to the bottom. I'm usually not ignoring you if I don't respond to a message :P! AGK 17:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin

Thank you for your GA review. I am very surprised by your concerns regarding criteria 2(a) and (b) which read "(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines"

Every fact in the article is in the sources listed. Any direct quotation, counter-intuitive or controversial statement is footnoted. Could you please point to any fact that you found unverifiable when you did your comparison to the sources given? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The article needs more work so that it complies with WP:V and WP:OR. For instance:

• "Circuit Judge Clark wrote a dissent which agreed with Phillips, because Clark saw production and gathering as subject to regulation by the state where the well was located. Hence, federal regulation of producers is unnecessary." - No reference, and the "hence" link stands as potentially OR (unless you are simply narrating the judge's line of thought, in which case the wording is misleading)
• The lead isn't referenced but that is acceptable per WP:LEAD. Indeed, the opening is impressively written and tidily summarises the rest of the article so I wouldn't change that at all
• "The FPC set the maximum prices charged for gas sold under a certificate. For example, if gas flowed from a well in Texas through a pipeline to New York where it was sold to a gas distribution company, the sale by the pipeline to the distributor would need a certificate. The final sale to retail customers were exempt from the law." None but the first sentence appears to be referenced. I'm not sure if you're using general references, such that all of that is contained in one text cited at the end of your article, or if you're using inline references, in which case any challengable material needs to be referenced with a specific page number.

The article wasn't far off of GA status, and certainly does satisfy the other criteria; the sourcing is simply a little weak. AGK 13:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was paraphrasing the cases and trying to simply the language. The sources were listed. I will address these concerns and try again. Racepacket (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I just did the follow-up GAN on this article, which also failed, and noticed that when you did your review, you didn't create a subpage for the review. It's not really a big deal, but for the sake of transparency and archiving, it is nice to have a separate subpage (in the format Talk:Foo/GA1) for the review. Next time, just press "follow this link" and it all sets itself up, nice and easy. I completely agree that the article was lacking suitable references, but in addition, the lead was too short; it should be a "decent size", see WP:LEAD for more on this. Hope to see you doing more reviews at GAN soon :) Regards, Arsenikk 16:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm learning that review subpages are now the norm; it's been a few years since I was active there, and things have changed :). I now always create the subpages, having learned this. Regards, AGK 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

re Your participation in Olive's appeal at AE

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Discretionary_sanctions = "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator shall be considered "uninvolved" only if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes as an editor in articles within the topic." I cannot recall participating in a content dispute as an editor in articles within the topic. If I have, I will gladly admit being mistaken about that, and move my comments. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. I do wonder, in light of that, why Olive thinks that you are involved. To be honest, I can't be bothered asking Olive in-thread; there's enough going on there without throwing another ingredient into the cauldron. AGK 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply here. What is your judgment, regarding the section of the case I have quoted to you, above? -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you've confirmed yourself as an uninvolved administrator, then that is enough for me. I trust my fellow administrators to be honest and to accurately assess their neutrality. Regards, AGK 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Complaint-driven removal of posts to my talk page, or on admin initiative?

Hi, AGK,

I see your removal of some posts by other users from my talk page, under the edit summary rationale of privacy policy, occurred earlier today. I'm not complaining about that, as you will note that any posts I made on related topics didn't mention any connection between a certain Misplaced Pages username and a certain person in the real world. But inasmuch as it appears that someone signing posts with the same username first self-identified on his own initiative on another talk page (which, as I have just verified, is still visible to the whole world), a talk page that is watched by many, many more page-watchers than my talk page, I wonder if this might be an example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I appreciate you looking out for Misplaced Pages users, and I welcome any comments you have about the situation you observed. You may use private channels to write to me (I have email enabled for my user account here) if you would like to see diffs that give more of the background in a less public setting. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you did not take offence to the removal, which was indeed complaint-driven. I did not know (and was not informed) that the individual's IRL identity was "self-outed", but it doesn't matter much because my deletion was more because it is genuinely undesirable to openly discuss, on-wiki, any matter which relates to IRL identities than because there was a serious danger of outing (which, if present, would have led me to request suppression/oversight). I'm going to let this be for now, unless anybody needs further comment or action from me, because, although it all seems rather confusing, I think at the heart of the matter there isn't much to deal with other than a clash of personalities. Regards, AGK 21:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

When I contacted you about this, the point of my complaint was just that the comments were personal attacks, and that they were bringing up off-wiki information about me (the contents of my blog) that I’ve never voluntarily disclosed here. The fact that the comments referred to me by my real name made it worse in my opinion, but my main concern about those comments was just a violation of WP:NPA, not outing. I tried to make that clear in my second message to you.

Either way I still appreciate you deleting the comments, because even if using my real name didn’t constitute outing, the comments were still personal attacks and other people shouldn’t be bringing up the contents of my blog here. The one additional thing that I think would be helpful from you is if you could notify Slrubenstein about why you’ve deleted his comments, since as far as I know he hasn’t been told what the reason for this was. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I'm going to leave this be unless the problem escalates from a conduct perspective and/or until the dissemination of personal info becomes so voluminous or serious that full suppression is necessary. Regards, AGK 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot on the MedCom current nominations page

Hi there AGK, MediationBot seems determined to delist me from Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Current, even though my nomination has been ongoing for some time. Can you please stop it from doing this? I've tried to add myself back a few times, but it just keeps removing me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is your nomination not in Category:Mediation Committee Nominations/Pending? Anomie⚔ 01:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas: I've added the category to your nomination page, so MedBot should add the page as it's supposed to and then leave it be. Sorry about that.

Anomie: I can think of two reasons why the nomination wouldn't be in that category: either Nicholas or somebody else inadvertently removed the category from the nomination page; or, there's a problem at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Form with making the category text actually appear on nominations (perhaps due to a clash or <noinclude> or <includeonly> tags?). In either case, it's not a malfunction by MedBot but some other problem that's messing things up. AGK 21:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That should fix new nominations. Anomie⚔ 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Anomie. Noinclude tags were always confuse me :P. AGK 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mail call

{{you've got mail}}

Not sure who this is from but I think I'll have answered the e-mail. AGK 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Question re:ArbCom on SAQ

Hi. I have some info for the arbitrators, but have no idea which section to put it in. The threads have become so long and convoluted that I just don't know the right place for this statement. It has do with the insertion of the "Standards of Evidence" section in the SAQ article, which I believe, from a behavior point of view, was a deliberate act to prejudice the entire article and violate npov. The section states that only mainstream researchers use " title page attributions, government records such as the Stationers' Register and the Accounts of the Revels Office, and contemporary testimony from poets, historians, and those players and playwrights who worked with him, as well as modern stylometric studies." This is simply not the case. Anti-strats use each and every one of these in building their various cases. I can easily provide refs, but antiStrat researchers such as Diana Price, Ogburn, Anderson have all used title pages, gov't records and contemporary testimony. And I know of several stylometric studies that anti-strats have used to bolster their cases. How do I raise this issue at ArbCom and where? Thanks. I will probably copy this question to another arbitrator or two in hopes of finding some clarity. Smatprt (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the best way of making your case would be to add to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence the diffs that substantiate your claim that there have been attempts to violate WP:NPOV. You should do this in the bottom section, entitled "Evidence presented by {your user name}"; remember to copy the template there and add it below your evidence, so that the next person who submits evidence also has the template.

If you want, you could also expand on your case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop#Analysis of evidence; or make more general comments on your evidence in a new sub-section of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop#General discussion. Hope this answers your question. AGK 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi AGK. You have at your talk page this "I am an Eguor administrator. I promise to "offer a fair hearing to editors who present a well-documented case that they've been mishandled in some way." If you need assistance, please ask and I will do my best to help." May I please ask you to explain to me how it works. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a general statement of my approach to dealing with, and assisting, other editors. Misplaced Pages:Eguor admins details the philosophy more. AGK 22:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So, if I am to present a well documented case that a few of my bans were unwarranted, you will listen to me, and give me your opinion? I actually do not even need a help. I am fine with those bans, but let's say I'd like to get a second opinion. This could help me in the feature. Would this be OK?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will certainly review the merits of your ban, yes, and would be willing to advise you, on an informal and preliminary basis, whether an appeal would be worthwhile: informal because appeals need the consensus of several administrators to pass; and preliminary because, per, User:AGK/Essays/Wheel war policy, I won't action a complaint or request for administrative action unless the matter is put through the appropriate forum (ie, WP:AE or similar). But certainly, explain the situation and give me enough evidence supporting your case and I'll review everything in full—although I can't promise I'll be prompt, as these things take time!

On another note: I recall that we've interacted before, but I can't remember in what context. Did I previously sanction you, or were you part of a mediation case (the latter rings most bells)? Regards, AGK 23:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to listen to me. No, you are one of a very few administrators, who has not yet :-) sanctioned me. Most others already have :-). And no, we did not meet on meditation, I've never been a part of one. We met almost a year ago, when I appealed my topic ban for I/P conflict. You voted to decline it then because you believed I violated the policy. When I questioned you what policy I violated you wrote: "You said that you had "never repeatedly violated policy" in the I/P subject area. You have. Diffs evidencing this can be found within the original AE complaint: nine reverts is a violation of several site policies" In the same thread you realized you were wrong, and apologized "Sorry, I was confusing the AE thread concerning your conduct with the one immediately above concerning another editor. Ignore the "nine reverts" part; that was me being tired.". I have never violated any policy on I/P conflict. I was topic banned on I/P conflict because of "battleground" behavior I demonstrated in the matters concerning ... the Holocaust. Anyway, it was a long time ago, and this is not why I came to your talk page today. I guess I will finish working on the article I'm writing, and later tonight or tomorrow will present my case to you. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But before I even start taking you time I'd like to find out your opinion in general. Let's say an editor has never abused AN/I and AN, and for the last few months hardly contributed there at all, could you think about any other situation (that do not involve abusing of those boards) in what banning this editor on AN/I and/or AN is warranted? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do you mean that you think it would be fair to ban an editor from AN/I and AN for misconduct where that editor's misconduct was not based at those noticeboards? AGK 13:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be meaningless to ban an editor on any area he/she never made any violation at. What do you think?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. AGK 01:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, if we have agreed on this one, then would you be willing to be a judge in my case? If you do, I believe the best way to present it would be a subpage in my user space, in which I will explain the situation to you. It will take your time to read it over and to respond. So, if you have no time, that's fine, just tell me you do not, and I will bother you no more. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Judge" is not, I think, a term that is accurate here; I'd be your advisor, if anything :P. If you go ahead and create the user subpage, I'll review what you have to say and then comment. Regards, AGK 23:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

• News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief

• In the news: Misplaced Pages controversies about Mormon topics examined; brief news

• Gender gap: Widespread discussions about the low participation of women in Misplaced Pages

• WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Monty Hall problem

Could you have a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/General discussion? Cheers, —Ruud 13:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As one of the people involved in the mediation I'm bit puzzled here. It seems none of the participants was even informed that the arbitration was closed (mediator bailed ?). And deleting the whole page, which actually contained a lot of useful arguments and even interrupting an ongoing seems rather rude. Also I don't quite understand what the privavcy concern is here, the discussion was public and in essence nothing but an extended discussion page of the article. Could you please shine some light on the issue or request the mediator (assuming the deltion was on his behalf) to inform people involved in the arbitration.

regards, --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

23:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Misplaced Pages in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely to be moved

WT:Arbitration Committee is unlikely to be moved without discussion and any discussed move would probably be carried out by a clerk or an arbitrator, the vast majority of whom have +sysop. I gather move protection was set to indefinite to prevent pagemove vandalism. (Not to mention that move=autoconfirmed is a completely redundant setting, as unconfirmed users can't move pages in the first instance =) –xeno 14:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. And really, can they not? I do wonder why on earth we have that setting then :P. Anyway, I've restored the full move protection, and left the edit protection unchanged as before. Regards, AGK 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, see Special:ListGroupRights. And as for why - I guess just because not all wikis are set up this way, and it would be more complicated to eliminate the ability to set move=autoconfirmed by itself. –xeno 14:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Any help needed?

Hey AGK!

I'm a newer editor here and I have recently been engaged in mediations at the Mediation Cabal. While my first did not succeed, I think I left the parties on better terms and more understanding of each position's side.

From my prowling around the projectspace, I found your calls for help at the Mediation Committee as you are understaffed. If there is anything I can do to help out, I would be glad to contribute.

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes a case simply doesn't work out, through no fault of the mediator. And one of the central aims of mediation is to promote mutual respect and co-operation between the parties to the dispute, so it seems you have succeeded in one major respect! Is that your first MedCab case? If so, you probably don't have the experience needed to join MedCom—which usually handles more advanced disputes than those seen in earlier steps of the DR process, like informal mediation. But if you're interested in mediation, do stick in at MedCab; when you've honed your abilities as a mediator and gained a more substantial record of successful mediations, I'm sure you'll fly through the MedCom nominations process (and then we can get you started on our backlog :P). Thanks for your kind offer to help out: it's always appreciated when editors help out backlogged processes. Kind regards, AGK 15:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :) I'll be sure to apply for the committee once I have more experience. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Felix Delahaye

I have copyedited this article following your recommendation. It was submitted for GA about a fortnight ago. Would you care to comment on how it is looking now please? alsoplease make any adjustments to the pics that you feel are necessary. Granitethighs 21:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm a bit behind on my workloads just now, but I'll certainly take a look at your article at some point over the next week if I get a chance to. My talk page archive bot doesn't move threads from this page for a fortnight, so this thread will serve as a recurring poke at me to get on this :). Regards, AGK 15:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just remembered that this is an article that I put on hold, so I'll definitely get to this at some point soon. AGK 21:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll go deal with this now. AGK 23:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AGKGranitethighs 05:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFM

I've never done a RFM, under "involved parties" do I need to list everyone who weighed in here? CTJF83 18:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to list everybody who was involved in the dispute. So list everyone who opined on the disputed material in the talk page RFC, or who was involved with editing in/out the disputed material, or who otherwise challenged the edits that are being disputed. If an editor only opined in the RFC as a third (neutral) party, they don't need to be listed, but they do if their comments constituted an explicit support or opposition of one or another opinion on the dispute. If there is doubt over whether a given editor is an involved party, just list them - and if they object, we can undertake a more detailed evaluation. Does that clarify things? AGK 02:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That part it does, I was reading that everyone has to agree to mediation? Huh?! So if I list 15 people and 14 agree, and 1 disagrees we are out of luck? Or would it just skip to Arbitration then? CTJF83 12:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Because apparently some users are more concerned about "winning" then they are improving Misplaced Pages. So how does it work? We just jump to Arbitration? CTJF83 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(Comment in my individual capacity and not on behalf of MedCom) In theory, that's how it works, yeah. In practice, though, if one person disagreed to mediation, then they might be excluded from later consensus-building discussion as a result of their unwillingness to consent to content dispute-resolution. So it is to everybody's advantage to agree to participate in reasonable suggestions to progress to more advanced stages of dispute-resolution, including formal mediation. Regards, AGK 22:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Should MediationBot's messages be protected?

It may be a good idea to preemptively protect User:MediationBot/Accepted message, User:MediationBot/Rejected message, and User:MediationBot/Opened message. Particularly the last, for reasons I won't go into for WP:BEANS. Anomie⚔ 17:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I should think so :) -  Done. AGK 18:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

• News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news

• In the news: Misplaced Pages wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Misplaced Pages; brief news

• Accreditation: Gaining accreditation as Wikimedia photographers at sports events

• WikiProject report: Articles for Creation

• Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought

• Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Email Request of a deleted page.

Hey AGK, it seems that you have done much to contribute to wikipedia and as a new user, I could use some help... I was hoping if you could send a copy of a deleted article 'Oldskool Pk' in hopes that i can look over it rather than just simply typing and leaving it and hope that no one notices that it's half finished or without a good explanation. I see the faults in the article but would like a copy to perhaps make improvements in my spare time and go through the text more carefully. If you could email me this article it would be great. Your help is greatly appreciated. Regards and thanks, Luis Victoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisVictoria (talk • contribs) on 10:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your kind words. Requests for copies of a deleted page should be directed to the page Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion. Regards, AGK 22:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Longevity ArbCom decision

Greetings,

I was a bit surprised with the Longevity ArbCom decision. I'm not sure how long "indefinitely" topic-banned would be, as it could be better or worse than one year. I had thought that the "mentoring" approach might work.Ryoung122 08:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a clerk for the Arbitration Committee: I just implement the arbitrators' decisions. Regards, AGK 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Census 2010

It should have been more than clear that I was editing information regarding Census 2010 city population counts. This seems to be a provocation from David in DC, who has in the past made it more than clear that he has a bias against me, which started on tangential topic material, yet has never recused himself from debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ryoung122

Ryoung122 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that David in DC was acting in good faith. In any case, a party of uninvolved administrators has determined that your remark about the census material was not related to Longevity, so the best thing to do now is to treat the matter as resolved and to move on. If David brings arbitration enforcement proceedings against you again, then that would be the time to raise the question of whether he is pursuing your contributions too closely; but again, unless that situation arises, I would ask that you drop the matter and move on positively. (Note: as a courtesy, I've linked David to this discussion because he is mentioned in it; but I nevertheless now consider this matter closed.) Regards, AGK 23:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Arborsculpture

Hi a while ago, I listed Arborsculpture for mediation, but it was closed as there was no rely on the discussion page. I stated on your talk page I would leave it unless it become an issue again, which it now has. I would like to re-list the case again. It was here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Arborsculpture I see that you have deleted it. It took me a long time to gather all the info with links, could you please undo the delete so that I can have access to the page to help with re-listing it? Blackash have a chat 03:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I've undeleted the case page (but not the talk page). Remember that you'll need to file the request as Arborsculpture 2. Regards, AGK 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I'll keep that in mind. Blackash have a chat 10:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding questions

Greetings. I wanted to ask a few followup questions regarding some of the decisions in the SAQ arbcom case. Can I post my questions to you as the clerk for the case?Smatprt (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, ask away. If I can't answer it, I'll tell you who can :). AGK 17:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question

Hi AGK. You clerked Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. A bit of a minor quibble: In the main case page, principle 5, "Discussion of minority views" is said to have passed 12 to 1, yet looking at the /Proposed decision, it's actually 13-0, with 2 abstentions. Additionally, it seems whoever posted the final decision stopped counting the votes a bit early, as none of the "final counts" take John VDB's late votes into account - his votes are timestamped mostly around 00:55 UTC on 2/15, the final decision is timestamped on 2/16. This should probably be revised, no? Badger Drink (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Argh! It looks like Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Proposed decision#Implementation notes didn't reflect how the vote tallies stood when I closed the case (as they were written a few days before I closed the case). I took the tallies I posted on the main decision page from the implementation notes, y'see, as they used that fancy, new-fangled box that lists the exact vote counts for every proposal (as opposed to the old/standard method used elsewhere). I guess I'm going to have to go through and update the counts :\. The joys of clerking… AGK 23:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

AE

Is this another case of the broken edit conflict resolver? . T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what happened; I certainly didn't get an edit conflict notice. Is the MediaWiki edit conflict resolve measure broken or something? I've posted a full comment about resolving this to AE. Regards, AGK 00:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what happens is that when MW is able to "resolve" the edit conflict, it doesn't give you a notice. Only problem is, it doesn't always resolve it right...Frankly, I think they should disable edit conflict resolution on talk pages. It seems to do more harm than good. T. Canens (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What

The sanctions are not imposed yet, the case is still open. Passionless -Talk 00:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just now imposed the sanctions, so they are now in effect. AGK 00:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed result concerning Tentontunic

How does this proposed remedy make sense? The Four Deuces and Tentontunic edit war over a POV tag, and you guys craft a remedy banning others not currently editing the article from contributing, because they were sanctioned some time in the past, regardless of whether they may have since reformed. Check the edit history, no one previously sanctioned under WP:Digwuren or WP:EEML has been editing the article for a significant period of time, yet you guys want to ban them for contributing in the future. I fail to see how that is rational or fair. --Martin (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

AE

Just to clarify what you wrote on my talk page is different from what was wrote on my AE page.--Shrike (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI - block appeal. Not sure if that needs to be handled by Arbcom or if the block was separate from the AE.  7  01:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Passionless. You know the drill. T. Canens (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)