The request for formal mediation concerning Template:Music of Canada, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Continuing with a facilitated discussion
While the Request for mediation had to be declined because at least one of the parties declined the mediation, I am willing to facilitate the discussion at Talk: Canada. I've asked users if they would summarize reasons for inclusion/exclusion of GSTQ. Would you be able to put together a brief summary (200 words, max) of your reasons as to why it should be excluded? I know that you have argued this at length in the past while. We just need a summary of your main points. This seems to me to be the best way to resolve this matter, as, I don't believe it is something that can be taken to arbitration. Sunray (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. My views are perfectly clear. This endless forcing people to rehash what they have already said is one of Miesianiacal's usual tactics, designed to wear everyone down--look at how often he has asked people to repeat what they have already said umpteen times. → ROUX ₪ 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever M may or may not be about, my view is that the way to resolve a content dispute is to talk directly, look at evidence and apply WP policies. If you are getting worn down, you may want to get speedy resolution (which I am certainly in favor of) or you can leave the field and do something else for awhile. Sunray (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have in fact done those things. I am singularly uninterested in repeating myself yet again for the benefit of a POV-pusher who has forumshopped this debate into multiple locations. And FYI, based entirely on his past behaviour, Miesianiacal's suggestion of moving the discussion to the music template talkpage is a way for him to then continue extending the dispute at Talk:Canada; he will cite WP:OTHERSTUFF and claim that the consensus in one place has no bearing on the consensus elsewhere. He's done it before. → ROUX ₪ 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Gaming the system will be unlikely as there are lots of eyes on it. Sunray (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh you are optimistic. The number of eyes is totally irrelevant. You'll learn. → ROUX ₪ 18:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Always optimistic, but I've been around WP for many years, so I'm not often surprised. Sunray (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Template talk:Music of Canada
I think it would be helpful if you avoided personal remarks about other editors. The discussion seems to be progressing (finally); no need to risk sending it in another direction. Sunray (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If Miesianiacal ceases his hypocrisy and wikilawyering, I will cease commenting on it. Pay attention to the actual problem here, and not the usual Wikipedia bullshit of smacking down the people pointing out the problem. → ROUX ₪ 19:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon if another Rfc/U, or some other avenue was taken to deal with Mies' interest of just one area of Wikipedia, it would have to be held by 'other' Canadian monarchists & non-Canadians. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The last RfC/U provided zero change in his behaviour. I suspect the only option is ArbCom; it's highly educational that ArbCom is the one venue where he didn't forumshop this dispute. Self-preservation at work. → ROUX ₪ 20:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it'll have to be his fellow Canadian monarchists, who'll need to be participants. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I am quite certain that if/when such an Arbcom case is presented I will be listed as a participant. I do not, however, have the inordinate amount of time required to assemble the diffs needed. Frankly, his current behaviour on Talk:Commonwealth realm alone (oh gee, remember his last bout of insanity on that page? remember how I had to ask him over thirty times for a fucking reference?) should have resulted in a lengthy block. → ROUX ₪ 20:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You see the problem. → ROUX ₪ 20:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will, naturally, participate in such a case if it is brought to ArbCom. I just simply don't have the multiple days required to assemble the diffs necessary to prevent his usual wikilawyering. → ROUX ₪ 20:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I'm a republican, I'd have to excuse myself from such a case. My participation would be seen as having an off-Wiki motive. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly wouldn't see it that way; the only indication of your personal POV I have ever seen has been in statements by you, and never in your actual editing. → ROUX ₪ 21:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roux, I saw that you removed a thread on ANI and I'm curious about the background here. I'm assuming you see something I don't because I assumed it was a new GF user, would you mind pointing me to the relevant discussion? SÆdontalk 22:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, the username plus the post indicated bloody obvious intent to just screw around. The user has a total of two edits, one of them questioning why anyone would think there was a problem with their username (another red flag), the second being the post to ANI. According to AGK, the user also made racist comment(s?) while logged out. Seriously, you believed that post was acting in good faith? Take off the blindfold. → ROUX ₪ 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah, calm down. I didn't check history, I just saw a red name asking what looked like a newbie question on an admin board and did what WP:AGF suggests. Nor am I accusing you of making a mistake, I'm just curious about the background of this user if there is any and assumed that since you removed it you might have some information. Normally threads are archived, even if trolling, and since you removed it I figured he might be a well known sock and I like to familiarize myself with socking patters to better spot them in the future. SÆdontalk 22:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Helpful hint #1: telling someone to 'calm down' when they are perfectly calm is a really fucking good way to piss them right the fuck off.
- Helpful hint #2: when someone with a username obviously referring to pot makes, as their second edit, a post to ANI (funnnnnnnnnny how they found it so fast...) offering photos of substance abuse, the assumption of good faith is at that point wilful blindness and refusal to engage your critical thinking skills.
- I hope these two hints help you in your undoubtedly bright future as a shining example of the admin corps. → ROUX ₪ 23:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I suppose if I pointed to WP:DICK it would be redundant. Have a good day! SÆdontalk 23:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As would linking you here, apparently. If you're going to refuse to use your brain for the three seconds required to understand what that troll was doing, I'm not really sure why I should be expected to be nice about it. → ROUX ₪ 23:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There can be a fine line between incompetence and Pollyanna. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. → ROUX ₪ 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that once the troll made his first edit, he lasted a grand total of 6 minutes before getting medicated.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to any of this, would you do me a small favor? Just post something random and mundane on my talk page. I've taken the page off my watch list temporarily. I want to see if I still get the orange bar. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done like a done thing. Also if you hate the orange bar, it's trivial to restyle the notification via CSS. → ROUX ₪ 23:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the test. The orange bar still shows up even if I don't watch the page. I've never done anything with CSS. It doesn't really bother me, but another user (Pinkadelica) brought up the subject, or maybe someone on his page did. Now, I shall devote the rest of the evening to translating that epic Latin work. If it translates to "What's up, Doc?" I might use it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roux. I just wanted to ask: what kind of font do you use on this page? Thanks. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a smart cookie, so I'm thinking the answer must be, "a font of knowledge." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A copy-and-paste into a document indicates it's Trebuchet MS. He can confirm if that's right, and also how one does that (if one is interested). If it is indeed that font, it's fitting, as he has suffered the slings and arrows of many a Trebuchet in his time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. After looking into what Mies has done to him, I can't help but feel bad for him. Thanks again. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
