User talk:Arcticocean

Rollbacker

So today I decided to undo my wrongings by helping undo vandalism..... 9hope thats a good thing), and I then looked up WP:Vandalism or something and I somehow got to here WP:RBK. And I was wondering what I should do and if I could get rollbacker ability... Thanks! --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can any of these cool admins help me?

Can any of these cool admins help me? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, (based on the New York Times for goodness sake) but I can't get it on.

Fact: Circumcision decreases a man's risk of getting HIV Fact: Circmcision INcreases a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia.

The article on "circumcision" mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once.

Can any of you cool administrators stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew from deleting my ONE sentence I want to add? Thanks, 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Without looking into the specifics of the dispute, and without unduly taking up a bias in either school of thought in this dispute, I will say that there will, or should, be a sound reason or concern for Avraham and Jakew reverting your additions.

When editors encounter (an)other editor(s) who are opposed to changes they are trying to make, the course of action to be taken from that point onwards is dispute resolution: that is, discussing the disputed changes amongst themselves, and, if necessary, with uninvolved editors.

Simply post a note to those editors' talk pages (User talk:Avraham and User talk:Jakew) asking if they would like to open a discussion, and inviting them to start a new section on the article's talk page (they'll know how to do that).

Logically, that discussion should consist of those editors and yourself, each outlining why you think the change should (not) be made, and take it from there. It is essential that you bear in mind throughout dispute resolution that the end result of the discussions should be one that has the most positive effect on the encyclopedia. Bear that in mind, and I'm confident you will all be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Best of luck, AGK (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Binding mediation for Waterboarding

Hello AGK. Since you are on the Mediation Committee, I thought I'd approach you. I realize that the Mediation Committee isn't supposed to resolve content disputes. But here we have a content dispute directly arising from a misinterpretation of policy. A large number of editors are (in my humble opinion) misinterpreting WP:FRINGE to pretend that a very real dispute over the "waterboarding is torture" lead sentence, with several prominent adherents on both sides (see Sept. 2003 comments by Jimbo Wales in WP:WEIGHT), does not exist or has been resolved in favor of "waterboarding is torture." In my opinion, it's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Several other editors agree, but we're being indef blocked one at a time by admins who have adopted the "waterboarding is torture" position. I believe that "waterboarding is torture" is also being used as cover for America bashing by certain editors, with far too much frequency and far too much gusto.

It's been to ArbCom, but they didn't really do anything except make it easier for "waterboarding is torture" admins to get rid of people who have disagreed with them (via article probation). I have already received a warning on my User Talk page for some very mild comments. I propose an unorthodox solution: binding mediation moderated by the entire Arbitration Committee, with all Waterboarding editors who partisipate agreeing to abide by the majority vote of the Mediation Committee. I am placing the same message on the Talk page of WJBScribe. Please help us resolve this dispute in an amicable fashion, and repair what I believe to be an outrageous WP:NPOV violation in the lead sentence. Neutral Good (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)