User talk:Feezo

Beatles "The/the" Mediation Input

As an IP I cannot voice my input regarding this matter via email, as the links are hidden to IPs. I will be going on vacation later today and as this input window is closing I can only blurt out arguments here, for which I apologize. After some historical observations of negative editor disciplinary behaviour I will not be obtaining a user name. I have never had one. Sorry. Please do not let sock or other sidetrack issues cloud any judgements. This has been one of the rants, used exhaustively, in the past, as a distraction from the resolution of issues.

---

• WP articles should be consistent style and MoS articles trying to guide these endeavours should be observed or changed to suit.
• "the Beatles" refers to four individual Beatles persons.

"The Beatles" refers the the rock band as a singular unit.

This style has been observed in hundred of Beatles article consistently and to change this de facto standard setting for one article could open up a huge rip in the consistency fabric as all articles will be subject to the same arguments based on this one example's outcome. This will continue disputes here ad nauseum and not be productive for the WP concept as these hundreds of articles become hotbeds of distractions base on this outcome.

• Since The Beatles trademark and/or copyrighted name seems to have varied throughout history on album covers and in media usage it cannot have any bearing on the decision of style in WP. Mostly all capitals was used on album covers but exceptions are noted and WP tries to avoid this style in prose. I have to discount any of this in the weight of my vote.

In Conclusion: my vote is to use both spellings in a style that adheres to content usage in the sentence, whether referring to the individual band members, or the collective singular band/group. This style appears to maintain the current de facto standard observed in hundreds of other Beatles articles and adheres to the WP:MOSTM to capitalize trademarks.

---

Thank you. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Penyulap is disrupting the straw poll at Sgt Pepper

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Now User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the straw poll at Sgt Pepper. What should I do, can you help with this please? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Hello — unfortunately, I do not feel I can directly involve myself in user conduct issues without jeopardizing my neutrality in the mediation case. The poll does not appear to be a productive use of anyone's time, and I recommend closing it. Will you agree to this, if Penyulap does as well? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC) sounds good. It's well past what people are willing to cope with. Be aware that the proposal was changed significantly during the course of the poll, and I don't think it's been marked as such. Penyulap ☏ 06:00, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC) Well, they stopped being disruptive there now, and I'm sorry I guess you are right, you should only handle the mediation. Other admins have stepped-in to protect the talk page from disruption. I think we should allow as many people as possible to weigh-in, so that we never have to do this again, so I say let the poll run its course and not do it again anytime soon. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC) It would seem that anybody that disagrees with your points is being disruptive, despite your name calling and insulting tone. I believe this is the forth person you have charged with this label in the last few weeks. Perhaps assuming some good faith is in order on your part? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes

I am still involved in this. --andreasegde (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation email

Hi - did my email about the/The get to you? I didn't get the copy that I was suppposed to, so wondwer if there's an email problem. Please let me know. Tvoz/talk 04:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I got it :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Twice I bet! Tvoz/talk 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please note that GabeMc is currently changing more musical group articles to "the" to suit his preferences. Depending on mediation outcome his edits will need to be traced and corrected. This may involve hundreds of hours of research to find these buried in his thousands of minute corrections, many one and two characters. GabeMc's edit history comments are mostly irrelavent and deceptive such as "improve prose" where he changes "The" to "the". Out of control seems to be the way to edit now. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC) whatever you 99, DON'T ask for a reference !! I tried it when I saw that flurry going on, and let me tell you, approach with *EXTREME* caution !!!! Penyulap ☏ 04:58, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC) As I said to Gabe, above, mediation does not include policing user conduct. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

RE:The Beatles mediation

Hello Feezo. I can't really think of much to say, sorry. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 08:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please check your Inbox.

Hello, Feezo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello Feezo. Did you get my message about cleaning cards and the fact that I know the history of cleaning cards because I invented and patented numerous cleaning cards? I wrote some accurate info for wiki and you reversed it and froze the page. Surely you want to make sure wiki is correct and not filled with inaccuracies.

If you did not receive my note, kindly let me know.

Stan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleantechcompany (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning card

At ANI, [1] and some of us think it might need to go to AFD for discussion since it has no sources. That will either fix it, or burn it to the ground so that something worthwhile can be constructed in its place. Since you protected and the protection is quite long, that would have have to be removed. I would like your opinions at the ANI discussion on the practicality of this if you can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Feezo. You have new messages at Jburlinson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mediation question

Are parties allowed to unilaterally withdraw their name from the list of involved parties? I have no intention of doing this; I'm just curious. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes — "mediation" really just means "voluntary structured discussion", and no one is ever obligated to participate. The principles section of the new mediation policy proposal summarizes the thinking behind this. In any case, thank you for your question, and for your continued participation. Please let me know if I can do anything further to help. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I add a point here? Read, "Mediated agreements are not binding". This means the whole thing could be argued about again in the future. Could you clarify this?--andreasegde (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Mediation facilitates the development of community consensus; once established, it is theoretically self-enforcing. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Divine image

Hey there Feezo!

As an administrator responsible for overseeing the MediaWiki:Bad image list, I was hoping that you could help me. I have been working on the page over at Divine (performer), but the main image – "File:Divine in Heaven T-shirt.jpg" – while remaining imbedded in the infobox, simply isn't appearing. Could you help in fixing this; I believe that it may be because at the bad image list, it it specified that the image must be used for Divine (actor), a former name for the Divine (performer) page. Thanks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated! If I can ever return a favour, let me know! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Links

Don't forget to link the notice to the poll. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Gah, thanks! Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Poll disruption

I view this as disruptive, will you please remove it from the poll? Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't let the poll become a mockery on the first night, many of us have worked really hard on this so it is beyond me that you would allow a third option to be added 20 minutes after the poll went live. You said the parties to the mediation needed to agree, well, no one would have agreed to this nonsense. Follow your word Feezo please. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you really going to leave a third option in the poll? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why I left the "mediation"

I tried to participate in the mediation, but I found that it was being hijacked in a most unfortunate, bullying manner, and I have better things to do with my time than to deal with that kind of behavior. Further, I think that the topic ban of a different editor who has done more than most to make this set of articles comprehensive, accurate, and high quality over the six years I have been editing them alongside him was a very bad call. The one who yells loudest, over-posts, doesn't allow people room to breathe, jumps on every comment made, and has manipulated this into a problem in need of mediation is the one who needs to take a step back. But bully editors never do that - they just keep going, and eventually hard-working, congenial, competent editors either leave the encyclopedia altogether, or stay away from articles they had a great interest in, and the encyclopedia suffers for it. I can think of four editors off the top of my head who couldn't take it any more and left The Beatles' set or left completely. There are more. This happens on the political articles too - I called out bully editing during the 2008 US presidential election many times. The stakes are higher there, so I stick with it. Here, I give up - they win - so be it.

For the record, in looking all of this over again, I must say again that the method that still sounds like the best approach to me is the one at User talk: Feezo#Beatles "The/the" Mediation Input. It is not complicated, and is easy to maintain (and was in effect already in many articles). Seems to me it was shut down because an IP suggested it, which is unfortunate, and/or because the person who has been leading the charge on carving a rule in stone on this very minor matter - and has been doing it in a disruptive way for years - just didn't like it. So much so that this reasonable compromise position isn't even included in the final poll. Too bad - the one who yells loudest should not be the one who "wins".

And now I see the vote started and long-time editors - or at least this one - not even notified. Tvoz/talk 02:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Tvoz, 1) show me diffs of where I have been pushing this for years, that's not true at all, this is the first time I EVER pushed it and I only did so because some parties to the dispute would not allow me to edit articles without pushing me around and insisting I follow their breach of grammar with no due process. 2) where have you been for the last 2 months? This is poor timimg to have suggestions now. 3) the community will decide this now, that's much better than 3-5 entrenched editors who always agree with each other no matter what pushing everyone else around, isn't it? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, actually I was talking to Feezo - if I had wanted to get into this with you, I would have written it on your Talk. If you recognized yourself in my comments, that speaks for itself. But in brief: 1) You haven't pushed the lower case "t" for years, regardless of any consensus reached, based on your view of "grammar"? And you expect me to give you diffs for that? 2) This is not the first time I have made my opinion known on the IP's point. Where I have been for the past two months is answered in my first paragraph. 3) There is so much verbiage on that poll page, that I would be amazed if people actually read through it - and I wonder if that wasn't a deliberate attempt to limit the response. I have an interest in those articles, having spent 6 years editing them, and I can't read it. You think the "community" will? And then no notifications given? Feezo and Mr S had good intentions, but I think this was lost before it began. Tvoz/talk 04:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, I said on the case talk page that after the poll opened, discussion of the case would take place on my talk page - so that may be why Gabe replied. You both make some fair points. It looks to me like the main issue is notification of individual editors - this was brought up early on in the mediation, and then dropped. There's no mention of it here, for example. I will try to dig up a bot to send around, but overall, Gabe is correct: the point isn't to rally the "entrenched editors" on both sides, but to seek wider community involvement. In the meantime, I ask everyone to please be patient - a month is a long time, and I think we will be able to address the majority of these concerns. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky)

Feezo, the non-notification was just the icing on the cake, the last straw, not at all my main concern. And if Gabe was actually concerned about entrenched editors, he would hold back and not reply to so many of the comments being made in the mediation discussion, yet he is, predictably, doing that too, including taking it on himself to eliminate Jayron's (and it is irrelevant what I think about Jayron's posts). I have no problem with Gabe or anyone replying here in general, and yes, I know that such discussion was to happen here - I am usually more than willing to talk to anyone who has something constructive to contribute to a conversation - but in this case I was addressing you as mediator, to explain why I had a problem with the way the whole thing played out - why I stopped participating - and hoped to hear your response to that and have a dialogue about it. Gabe's jumping in here just 12 minutes after I posted, when I did not mention him specifically, is emblematic of what I see as the problem. In my view there is little room for dialogue when one person dominates a discussion by feeling a need to reply to what feels like each and every critical comment. That is what I meant above, and in email, by The one who yells loudest, over-posts, doesn't allow people room to breathe, jumps on every comment made - what I refer to as "bully" editing, in effect drowning other voices in a sea of words - my observation over the years is that this results in people throwing their hands up and walking away, rather than staying with it. This is what I see happened in this latest attempt, why I left, and why I came here to talk about it. Tvoz/talk 18:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz, would you mind if we discussed this via email? As you know, mediation isn't a venue for discussion of user conduct, and as both the mediator and an involved editor, the most I can do is explain why I think the parties have acted the way they have. Gabe will, understandably, want to give his version of the conduct you describe, which leads to a user conduct discussion with a very limited scope for action. I do appreciate that you've taken the time to leave this feedback — however, I suggest that we archive it and, if necessary, continue the discussion privately. Of course, if you feel that some action is called for, you're free to pursue it in other channels. Again, thank you for your time. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why I raised it here, not on the mediation page, as you suggested. Tvoz/talk 21:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Badgering

I remember that "badgering" was discussed, and agreed that it was not to be allowed on this page, but it has already started.--andreasegde (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

and now he's bullied someone into striking their vote. His actions are in total disregard to the spirit of mediation Hot Stop (Edits) 03:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We get it Hot Stop, its basic smear campaign stuff, you just keep mentioning something over and over without ever providing diffs aka proof. Did you know that Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. are considered personal attacks? You have now made several. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(As I started this thread)To Feezo and Mr. Stradivarius: I left the mediation (as asked) because I understood that both mediators wanted a peaceful process, which I agreed with, but the badgering is becoming quite vicious now, as statements like "stop smearing me, Your personal attacks, Your attempts to muddy the waters, poison the well, baseless accusations, your guerilla tactics", show. Would it not help the poll if editors were asked to stop/tone down (what you will), their retaliatory comments in the discussion section?--andreasegde (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Socks, trolls, and sock-trolls

Do we have any plans to keep sockpuppets and/or trolls out of this mediation? I see that at least two !voters thus far have become active on Wikipedia within the past two months, one of them less than seven days ago. This causes me concern, and I wonder if there shouldn't be a degree of qualification (certain number of posts/time registered) required to take part in the mediation, given the socking insanity we've already witnessed. Any thoughts on that? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Evanh2008, and well spotted. This (TheTravelingSalesmen/Fabulinus), and this (Peppy Fazoo) are highly suspect.--andreasegde (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Standard procedure is to tag the votes with {{spa}}, which any editor may do. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 13:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I never knew that, and I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation participant notification

Here is the text I propose for notifying the individual participants of past polls on the subject:

Hello — this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~~~~

If this looks okay, then we can get started. There are a fair number of participants, though, so I wouldn't mind some help. It shouldn't matter who posts the notifications, but one could append (on behalf of User:Feezo) so there's no confusion. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I can help. Tell me how. Should I take one of the "here"s in your message above? Jburlinson (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you could make a list here of the ones you notify, that'd be great. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I did the first of the pages you referenced above -- talk page "The Beatles/Archive 30". I sent the message to the talk pages of anyone who contributed who has not already weighed in with a vote or a comment. These were: Steelbeard1, GoingBatty, JG66, Szyslak, Jojhutton, tSR - Nth Man, BeatlesGirl7, Siroxo, Diannaa, Rreagan007, Stlamanda, Toledo turtle 47, RudolfRed, Dr.K. Jburlinson (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

BeatlesGirl was blocked as a sockmaster/puppet. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. It doesn't show on the user's talk page. Jburlinson (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a few more from the second link in the message -- all those who had not participated or been contacted by someone else. Here's the list: Richerman, Huw Powell,

Kencf0618, Jprg1966, 21stCenturyGreenstuff, Hotcop2, Arjayay, Mauri96, Tearaway, Nortonius, Ericdeaththe2nd. Jburlinson (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for doing the legwork, by the way. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles Poll: Suggestion for future interactions

Hello all. It has not escaped the mediators' notice that there have been ongoing civility problems in the current poll. The situation seems better today than it did a couple of days ago, but we are still seeing comments questioning other editors' motives, accusation of unfair tactics, and so on. Although the mediators have thus far dealt with these incidents on an individual basis, we must stress that we cannot, ultimately, take sides in a user conflict. Since the RfC is running for a fixed period, a sustained level of incivility would force us to formally rescind the privileged status of this mediation, leaving future conduct open to sanction at AN/I and other places.

We do not wish this to happen, and furthermore, we believe that it will not be necessary. It is in the parties' interests — all parties, however slighted they may feel — to comport themselves in a dignified and civil manner. At the same time, the mediators recognize that this can sometimes be difficult — perhaps what is needed is a bright-line.

To this end, we have a suggestion for the mediation participants: would you be willing to voluntarily stop interacting with the other mediation participants on the poll page, or on other pages, for the duration of the poll? You would still be able to respond to editors who were not originally part of the mediation, but you would agree not to respond to posts made by the other participants, either directly or indirectly. This would mean no direct replies to each others' posts, no mentions of individual posts by other mediation participants, and no mentions of other mediation participants themselves. If you are in doubt about whether this applies to a post you want to make, you can discuss it here at User talk:Feezo and the mediators can bring the issue up on the poll page if necessary. Also, this voluntary agreement would only apply to discussion relating to the poll, and not to other Wikipedia matters. For the mediators — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Indication of agreement

Please leave your signature below:

1. Rothorpe (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Good idea. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Makes good sense. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
4. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
5. Sounds like a fine suggestion to me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
6. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
7. Jusdafax 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would sign this willingly, but does this mean that a certain editor will actually stop harrasing anybody that disagrees with him, and if he does not stop, will he be warned that he must stop? I refer you to this, and this. The latter is a quiz. This kind of blatant bullying must be stopped. But will it?--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC) If you have a user conduct complaint, send it to me or Mr. Stradivarius by email. All user conduct issues — regardless of merit — that relate to this mediation will be dealt with privately. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have no problem with this, but all parties need to agree to it. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Further, if we're allowed to badger other respondents, what's the point? I'd rather someone accuse me of being an idiot than allow editors to "quiz" those not a party to the mediation with no restraint. And why back down from the original 'don't badger at all' rule as discussed earlier on in the mediation process? Hot Stop (Edits) 16:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hot Stop — what it comes down to is basically that the mediation is still a voluntary process. We can't force the parties to withdraw from the discussion, but we hope that they will consider a more limited interaction ban. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The mediators have to take some action on these comments by a "certain editor", or this will be a farce. Are we (the list is growing), to be abused in this way? Is this a totally one-sided poll where people can be insulted in such a fashion without reprimand? This badgering and the insults have to be stopped. If you do nothing at all, it will prove the case that this poll is fixed.--andreasegde (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC) I have to say that I do feel this poll is being fixed, and was "fixed" before it started. There have been NO serious warnings at all about some serious transgressions by a certain editor, as he was allowed to seriously bully people with his badgering, and insults, without any kind of serious warning. I dare you to tell me I am totally wrong about this, and say that it was totally neutral in every way.--andreasegde (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Comment - I think its very, very telling who has signed the above list and who refuses to. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC) I fully expected a comment like that. :))--andreasegde (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Repeated accusations without evidence Feezo please put an end to the string of never ending insults and accusations made against me by User:Andreasegde. Today they are continuing the smear campaign despite the fact that I have hardly responded to anyone there in several days. Please maintain the level of civitity you promised at the start. I would also suggest that several personal attacks made at the mediation poll should be redacted. Don't let Andreasegde derail this mediation with these WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics when we are so very close to establishing a lasting consensus. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Andreasegde's continued smearing of reputations via outrageous accusations Andreasegde has accused at least three editors of being abusive in the last three days. @ Fut.Perf: "I find your use of words like "veiled insinuations" to be argumentative and abusive, as I was asking a very simple question." -andreasegde (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC) @ Evan: "Saying "dumb" is abusive, even if you said, "Possibly". Please, think about that" .--andreasegde (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC) @ Me: "Your badgering and personal attacks are abusive. Not only to me, but to others as well" .--andreasegde (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Please deliver the standard of civility you promised us all at the start of the mediation and stop the smear campaign. Please! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC) My point exactly I don't have to say a thing. If it wasn't so obvious it would be funny, but it's not.--andreasegde (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Beatles poll question Is it really appropriate for an editor to follow every !vote he disagrees with back to that user's talk page and challenge their reasoning effort and logic? Shouldn't opinions be respected even if disagreed with? We don't see this behavior at AfD or other places like that.Only here and only with one editor. An Observer. 174.252.99.185 (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC) If you have a user conduct complaint, send it to me or Mr. Stradivarius by email. All user conduct issues — regardless of merit — that relate to this mediation will be dealt with privately. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My mediation comment (Beatles, notifications)

Hi, sorry, didn't know it was already being discussed. Feel free to remove my comment from the mediation page if you feel it causes disruption to the process. Additionally, if you need an uninvolved admin to review a decision or take administrative action (which I know is generally not a good thing in mediation, but has happened), let me know--I could not possibly care less whether the group is called The Beatles or the Beatles. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Section Closure

Why can't I instigate a discussion of external style guides during the poll discussion? Indeed how could I possibly effectively represent our side without doing so? The other side has walls of ranting text with all kinds or "evidence", at least my thoughts are organised. You should close all the walls of text or none at all Feezo. I have a right to discuss what I want to right? Or am I bared from using any evidence already in the poll text? When did we discuss that? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your new version asks a question, and is thus a reasonable beginning for a discussion thread. Simply repeating part of the evidence from the lower case evidence section could be interpreted as a mere attempt at "saturation". Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I have never done this before, nor would I again, so I am still learning. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• How is that thread any different. Allowing the re-posting of stuff already cited as evidence gives the false impression that someone other than Gabe actually wrote that evidence. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, would you agree to {{cot}}/{{cob}} tagging the repeated list? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Feezo, that's fine. I only ask that you treat the walls of text explaining why we are all wrong the same, e.g. SMcClandish's verbose manifesto which he repeated more than once. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Poll disruption

Please remove the disruptive addition of a third option to the poll text. I agree with Piriczki. If the poll text changes during the process we open ourselves up to charges of confusion and disruption. Also, the mediators advised all parties to the mediation that the poll would not go live until the parties had reached agreement. Since no discussion for this third "option" occured during mediation, I argue that to allow it now is in fact to be in breach of the mediation agreement. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Feezo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary-less removal from talk page

I come to you because I saw this removal of a section from a talk page. A bit of reading reveals that this issue is apparently a hotly-contested one, and I'm sure you have good reasons, but I would appreciate a meaningful edit summary. When I see what appears to be valid content removed without a summary, my first instinct is to immediately roll back. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have some scripts which I think may help. Try adding this to your vector.js (or monobook.js):

// Rollback scripts
importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js');
importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/massrollback.js');
importScript('User:Gracenotes/rollback.js');
rollbackSummaryDefault = "[[WP:RBK|Reverted]] edits by [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ([[User talk:$2|talk]]) to last version by $1";

This will allow you to do mass reverts with custom edit summaries, or individual reverts with edit summaries. When I tested it the mass rollback script opened two windows for every rollback instead of one, but it seems to work ok nonetheless. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles‎

That has been protected for more than a month, and there's a supposedly public poll on it where I was thinking of posting a comment. Can you unprotect it and see if disruption recurs? Thanks. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted two suspicious IPs as apparent open proxy socks, hope that's okay with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles rfc on watchlist

Hi Feezo. I don't know the ins and outs of the RFC on The/the Beatles but it was mentioned on the RFC that you'd dismissed the idea of a notice on the watchlist. As something of an outsider, might I ask you if you'd perhaps revisit the idea for the final week of the RFC just to get the widest input, tick all the boxes and cover all the bases? Regards, Hiding T 10:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to a watchlist notice in principle — I just won't argue for or against it. Amalthea's post describes my views, but I'm willing to oversee an "official" request. So if you want to do this, I propose that you draft a watchlist notice request on the case talk page, allow a day or two for input from other participants, then post it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've offered up a suggestion at the poll, thanks. Happy editing, Hiding T 19:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So, is this going to actually happen or will this be yet another good idea that was never given an opportunity? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on what you want to do. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you happy to make the request, Feezo, or is there a wrinkle I'm missing somewhere? Regards, Hiding T 08:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is that the editors who want the notice agree to the wording of the request. I haven't seen specific objections to the wording proposed here, so if you or Gabe want to post it, I would say go ahead. ("One week of Watchlist notices" should be changed to "A watchlist notice until 15 October".) Although I am willing to make the request myself, I think it would be better if one of you makes it. That way, the resulting discussion will not be swayed by the disclaimer that I do not endorse the request. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Request made, taking into account the amendments you suggested, at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Beatles RfC. Regards, Hiding T 09

15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I've withdrawn the request given the opposition. Hiding T 16:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for advice

As you are one of the mediators for the infamous "t/The" Beatles mediation, I'd like to ask for your opinion and guidance. Please take a look at my talk page, specifically the section titled "Votestacking." I'd very much appreciate your thoughts on whether or not this constitutes a personal attack, and, if so, what, if anything, can I do to make it stop. Thanks for your assistance. Jburlinson (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I recommend that you remove the entire conversation from your talk page and instruct Gabe not to contact you again. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Done. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly have no intention of ever discussing anything with Burlinson again, having called him out on all his misdeeds. I hope he will also refrain from posting at my talk page. I hope there are no hard feelings however, I just honestly think we are not intellectually compatible. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)