Jump to content

User talk:Arcticocean

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 23:08, 7 October 2010 (→‎re tree shaping: Response.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:AGK/NoticeUser: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.

uninvolved

I have never had any editorial disputes with Brews. I did request arbitration after finding a community sanction thread that was hopelessly deadlocked. For background, read the Speed of light case. Please refactor your AE remark to remove the insinuation that my comment was improper. Jehochman Talk 09:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I seemed to remember some interaction between you two, but a search came up empty and I couldn't recall the exact details. My question was neutrally phrased so I see no need to refactor. But I will post a follow-up at AE so that future readers of the discussion can know the answer to my question too, if that is satisfactory? Regards, AGK 12:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do think there is an issue here, but then Wikipedia's rules regarding involvement/uninvolvement were clearly not written with technical articles in mind, see here for the problem. I note that when this AN/I thread was closed and Jehochman discussed on my talk page with Brews and me, things did clear up. So, the problem is actually that Jehochman tends to be too uninformed about the actual relevant details of the dispute and tends to make judgements based on the mere fact that someone has complained.
In summary, in the case discussed on AN/I I linked to, there was a dispute about Brews wanting to include an example in the centrifugal force page. What Brews wanted led to opposition, the main problem being article bloating, article becoming too textbook like etc. etc.. Two editors invoked OR, but that was a huge stretch and hugely escalated the dispute, as the subsequent AN/I debate I linked to also points out. The problem with Jehochman was that he reacted entirely on an OR warning by one of these editors given on Brews' talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term, editorial dispute may have a very narrow definition. Jehochman has, however, adopted an adversarial role over an extended period of time, and on one occasion declared a "prejudice in advance" outright. See here. So a grain of salt regarding his level of neutrality is in order, although he possibly is not technically required to recuse. Brews ohare (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar enough with the complaint in question to judge whether Jehochman's comments are misguided. But even if I were, I would be very reluctant to conclude that his comments were misguided because he was too prejudiced to see the reality or too uninformed to make a useful evaluation—rather than because his opinion was simply different from mine and from yours. And for whatever it's worth, I've always found Jehochman's comments to be very reasonable—although I very often disagree partially or completely with them :). AGK 22:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note. Thank you AGK for alerting me to follow on commentd, but I've already seen this and have nothing more to add. Sometimes editors should agree to disagree and move on. Jehochman Talk 00:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the recent requests for you to behave appropriately at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

Would you be so kind as to explain what you mena by this? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing diffs may be helpful, AGK. (Check your email.) One must be careful about moral equivalence. Some contributors add high-value content to Wikipedia. Others merely add political strife. There is a big difference between these types of editors. Be careful you don't lose sight of why we are here. Jehochman Talk 12:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WMC: I'm now are of your comments on your talk page and will be posting a response in a moment. But in short: I see that you haven't been explicitly warned; that's a shame, as I thought you had, and it makes my action look as though it was misinformed. It wasn't. As you made a personal attack, the sanction will stand (unless another clerk wants to revert me). AGK 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re WMC

I am not sure that you are adopting the best tone on WMC's talkpage, or indeed if responding is the best option at all. WMC has a very clear vision on what he thinks is proper, and is unbending in his expression of it (although my experience is that he will abide by those restrictions made on him). You may just have to recognise that you and he will differ in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with WMC is that anything but total bluntness is ineffective, hence my current approach. That does not seem to be working either. I have finished responding to him now: even when not annoyed I can be heavily sarcastic, but I'm now losing patience (which is actually rare for me) so I fear I'm going to get worse—and I would not want to say something I would regret. Thanks for the advice, by the by: some outside input is always appreciated. AGK 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've already descended into snarkiness, so by your own rules you should now ban yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My snarkiness was at least understandable, and moreover did not interfere with an arbitration case that matters so much more than whatever personal vendetta you're running in a given week. AGK 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're descending ever further. Pull back now before you hit the brink. Meanwhile, tehre are unanswered questions for you at my talk page - do please show up and answer there, not here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh is that your excuse for PA-n-run? You've accused me, on no basis at all, of deliberately waiting 12 hours before objecting to your errors. You're entirely happy just to let that PA stand, are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unhelpful if we were to interact more in relation to your objections to my ban, so do not expect a response to your latest comments. AGK 22:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from any clerk-like activities in relation to this case, or at least to WMC, if/while you don't have the necessary temperamental disposition. We all make such misjudgements. They usually don't matter much if we are then able to apologise to a fellow editor who is fuming because we have treated them unfairly. In fact, making some mistakes and then apologising often improves the general social climate and even the fallible editor's standing, when compared to making no mistakes at all. Hans Adler 10:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC made a personal attack on a case that was subject to strict conduct standards. As a clerk I was directed to remedy his conduct, hence the ban from case participation. William has an uncanny ability to twist reality into a convincing falsity that serves his purpose, which angered me. My anger was because of William acting so unhelpfully, but it was also wrong; the initial action was, however, sound. So whilst I don't agree with your comments about mistakes (well, I agree with them, but I would not say they apply to my ban of Connolley), I do accept your other remarks and I will be resuming my non-participation, as a clerk, in this case. Thanks for your opinion and for speaking up; hearing others thoughts is always appreciated. Regards, AGK 23:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page...

{{Tb|EdChem}} I wasn't sure if you noticed I had responded.  :) EdChem (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. With all the palaver kicked up by Connolley (see above), I hadn't had time to reply. I'll do so now, at your talk page. Regards, AGK 23:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely understandable. ArbCom has copped some unfair criticism about not responding to ammendment / clarification requests where the outcome is already obvious, with some editors not recognising that the sheer magnitude of the CC case must be driving them nuts. Anyway, whenever you have a chance, this is just to let you know that I responded to your response. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation question

Hi AGK, I see that you are working on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Restoring Honor rally. I filed the request and added Wikiposter0123 (talk · contribs) because I remembered him from the early stages of the debate. However, the user has not done anything with the article since September 5th and has only made a few edits to other articles between then and now. In the interest of not having the case declined due to a lack of response, is it possible to remove him from the case? Many thanks. BS24 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BS24. Looking at Wikiposter's contributions, I see ample edits to the Restoring Honor rally article and participation in discussions on the article talk page. Though he has had no participation since the start of September, he was actually quite active on the article in August. In light of that, I do not think it would be wise to eliminate the editor from the mediation without some consultation with the other parties—and ideally with Wikiposter himself. Could you pursue that course of action first? Regards, AGK 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not interested. Currently those on board include editors who take challenges personally, prevaricate, and skip out on arguments when theirs are crumbling. I'm also not interested in being the only editor who will insist that we don't need to list every half-ass estimate or non-estimate (which Azure is wanting to do despite Xeno much better arguments) when a good quick summary of the range and a little more detail on the only substantial estimate from CBS's study. Essentially a tact of subsuming good info with bad to match an apparent agenda seems to be the goal. In my mind, the editors currently agreeing to mediate actually think there was more than a 100,000 people at the rally, despite no good information to support it. They have vigorously opposed any citations that point out how substantial CBS's number is, and any good citation that questions the bogus NBC 300,000 estiamte. I also have to wonder why having under 1000K at the rally is somehow shameful or disappointing. If you could interest Zeno and IP209 in joining, I might be interested, but right now, I hardly have the patience. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation is an incredibly useful tool in that the mediator, as a neutral party, can facilitate absolute rationality. If the dispute is about the article Sky and party A's argument is that the sky is clearly green, the mediator simply says, in a neutral and balanced manner, "could you state your sources for that?". And if Xeno is User:Xenophrenic: he is already participating in the mediation. Regards, AGK 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiposter0123

Hi AGK, is it correct that the mediation will be rejected if one party does not respond? That is what it seems from my survey of some archived requests. My issue is that I would like Wikiposter0123 to participate, but he has made just one edit since Sept. 8th and appears to be inactive, so I don't want the case to be rejected if he doesn't respond. If I am incorrect that mediation will be rejected if one party doesn't respond, then I have no problem keeping him listed. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the participants of a dispute must be listed in any respective mediation request. But the chairperson has some discretion in allowing a request to be accepted if a small number of parties do not respond to the request because of inactivity. I suspect I may be more receptive to the prospect of accepting cases without the consent of inactive/semi-retired parties than most of my predecessors as chairman have been. Looking again at Wikiposter0123, I do not think it would be helpful to wait for him to log back onto Wikipedia, because he appears to not have done so for a number of weeks (and if you ignore that one instance on 27 September, for over a month). So long as we can secure the consent of User:The Artist, I will be willing to accept the request without waiting for Wikiposter. AGK 13:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. The Artist just agreed to mediation. BS24 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Maybe this sounds naive

...But how do I respond to it? Just say, "OK?"

I'll do so, if I figure out the right page/place. Thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. AGK 14:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re tree shaping

In regards to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Arborsculpture

Please see the comments of SilkTork and RegentsPark on the matter.

I dropped by here to see how matters were getting along, and am saddened (but not entirely surprised) that there is still an ongoing dispute over the use of the terms arborsculpture and tree shaping. Various editors have offered Third opinions, advice, assistance and informal mediation on this matter. I mediated for quite some time. So that route has already been explored. It appears that whatever decision is made regarding the use of arborsculpture and tree shaping, one party will object, therefore informal mediation via the Mediation Cabal is not appropriate - it would simply be perpetuating the existing problem. You may try stepping up to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee - that is accepted as the next stage in a dispute resolution. The Committee is a more formal mediation body. if people are serious about solving this dispute, then use Mediation Committee rather than Mediation Cabal. SilkTork *YES! 09:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think silktork has said it right. The naming discussion is not going to be resolved through the mediation cabal because it is a weak form of mediation and, whatever the outcome, one side or the other is not going to accept it. The naming discussion has gone on fruitlessly for an excessively long time and, since it appears that even the alternative names suggested by colincbn are not getting sufficient traction, the mediation committee may be the only way to go. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tree_shaping#Straw_poll_.28Mediation.29

AfD hero (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look. I might have called this wrong. AGK 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. AfD hero (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I think I should have accepted this. But please understand that it may be a good month or more before a mediator becomes available for your case. The MedCom's workload is large at present. AGK 23:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

uninvolved

I have never had any editorial disputes with Brews. I did request arbitration after finding a community sanction thread that was hopelessly deadlocked. For background, read the Speed of light case. Please refactor your AE remark to remove the insinuation that my comment was improper. Jehochman Talk 09:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I seemed to remember some interaction between you two, but a search came up empty and I couldn't recall the exact details. My question was neutrally phrased so I see no need to refactor. But I will post a follow-up at AE so that future readers of the discussion can know the answer to my question too, if that is satisfactory? Regards, AGK 12:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do think there is an issue here, but then Wikipedia's rules regarding involvement/uninvolvement were clearly not written with technical articles in mind, see here for the problem. I note that when this AN/I thread was closed and Jehochman discussed on my talk page with Brews and me, things did clear up. So, the problem is actually that Jehochman tends to be too uninformed about the actual relevant details of the dispute and tends to make judgements based on the mere fact that someone has complained.
In summary, in the case discussed on AN/I I linked to, there was a dispute about Brews wanting to include an example in the centrifugal force page. What Brews wanted led to opposition, the main problem being article bloating, article becoming too textbook like etc. etc.. Two editors invoked OR, but that was a huge stretch and hugely escalated the dispute, as the subsequent AN/I debate I linked to also points out. The problem with Jehochman was that he reacted entirely on an OR warning by one of these editors given on Brews' talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term, editorial dispute may have a very narrow definition. Jehochman has, however, adopted an adversarial role over an extended period of time, and on one occasion declared a "prejudice in advance" outright. See here. So a grain of salt regarding his level of neutrality is in order, although he possibly is not technically required to recuse. Brews ohare (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar enough with the complaint in question to judge whether Jehochman's comments are misguided. But even if I were, I would be very reluctant to conclude that his comments were misguided because he was too prejudiced to see the reality or too uninformed to make a useful evaluation—rather than because his opinion was simply different from mine and from yours. And for whatever it's worth, I've always found Jehochman's comments to be very reasonable—although I very often disagree partially or completely with them :). AGK 22:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note. Thank you AGK for alerting me to follow on commentd, but I've already seen this and have nothing more to add. Sometimes editors should agree to disagree and move on. Jehochman Talk 00:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the recent requests for you to behave appropriately at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

Would you be so kind as to explain what you mena by this? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing diffs may be helpful, AGK. (Check your email.) One must be careful about moral equivalence. Some contributors add high-value content to Wikipedia. Others merely add political strife. There is a big difference between these types of editors. Be careful you don't lose sight of why we are here. Jehochman Talk 12:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WMC: I'm now are of your comments on your talk page and will be posting a response in a moment. But in short: I see that you haven't been explicitly warned; that's a shame, as I thought you had, and it makes my action look as though it was misinformed. It wasn't. As you made a personal attack, the sanction will stand (unless another clerk wants to revert me). AGK 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re WMC

I am not sure that you are adopting the best tone on WMC's talkpage, or indeed if responding is the best option at all. WMC has a very clear vision on what he thinks is proper, and is unbending in his expression of it (although my experience is that he will abide by those restrictions made on him). You may just have to recognise that you and he will differ in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with WMC is that anything but total bluntness is ineffective, hence my current approach. That does not seem to be working either. I have finished responding to him now: even when not annoyed I can be heavily sarcastic, but I'm now losing patience (which is actually rare for me) so I fear I'm going to get worse—and I would not want to say something I would regret. Thanks for the advice, by the by: some outside input is always appreciated. AGK 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've already descended into snarkiness, so by your own rules you should now ban yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My snarkiness was at least understandable, and moreover did not interfere with an arbitration case that matters so much more than whatever personal vendetta you're running in a given week. AGK 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're descending ever further. Pull back now before you hit the brink. Meanwhile, tehre are unanswered questions for you at my talk page - do please show up and answer there, not here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh is that your excuse for PA-n-run? You've accused me, on no basis at all, of deliberately waiting 12 hours before objecting to your errors. You're entirely happy just to let that PA stand, are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unhelpful if we were to interact more in relation to your objections to my ban, so do not expect a response to your latest comments. AGK 22:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from any clerk-like activities in relation to this case, or at least to WMC, if/while you don't have the necessary temperamental disposition. We all make such misjudgements. They usually don't matter much if we are then able to apologise to a fellow editor who is fuming because we have treated them unfairly. In fact, making some mistakes and then apologising often improves the general social climate and even the fallible editor's standing, when compared to making no mistakes at all. Hans Adler 10:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC made a personal attack on a case that was subject to strict conduct standards. As a clerk I was directed to remedy his conduct, hence the ban from case participation. William has an uncanny ability to twist reality into a convincing falsity that serves his purpose, which angered me. My anger was because of William acting so unhelpfully, but it was also wrong; the initial action was, however, sound. So whilst I don't agree with your comments about mistakes (well, I agree with them, but I would not say they apply to my ban of Connolley), I do accept your other remarks and I will be resuming my non-participation, as a clerk, in this case. Thanks for your opinion and for speaking up; hearing others thoughts is always appreciated. Regards, AGK 23:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page...

{{Tb|EdChem}} I wasn't sure if you noticed I had responded.  :) EdChem (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. With all the palaver kicked up by Connolley (see above), I hadn't had time to reply. I'll do so now, at your talk page. Regards, AGK 23:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely understandable. ArbCom has copped some unfair criticism about not responding to ammendment / clarification requests where the outcome is already obvious, with some editors not recognising that the sheer magnitude of the CC case must be driving them nuts. Anyway, whenever you have a chance, this is just to let you know that I responded to your response. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation question

Hi AGK, I see that you are working on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Restoring Honor rally. I filed the request and added Wikiposter0123 (talk · contribs) because I remembered him from the early stages of the debate. However, the user has not done anything with the article since September 5th and has only made a few edits to other articles between then and now. In the interest of not having the case declined due to a lack of response, is it possible to remove him from the case? Many thanks. BS24 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BS24. Looking at Wikiposter's contributions, I see ample edits to the Restoring Honor rally article and participation in discussions on the article talk page. Though he has had no participation since the start of September, he was actually quite active on the article in August. In light of that, I do not think it would be wise to eliminate the editor from the mediation without some consultation with the other parties—and ideally with Wikiposter himself. Could you pursue that course of action first? Regards, AGK 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not interested. Currently those on board include editors who take challenges personally, prevaricate, and skip out on arguments when theirs are crumbling. I'm also not interested in being the only editor who will insist that we don't need to list every half-ass estimate or non-estimate (which Azure is wanting to do despite Xeno much better arguments) when a good quick summary of the range and a little more detail on the only substantial estimate from CBS's study. Essentially a tact of subsuming good info with bad to match an apparent agenda seems to be the goal. In my mind, the editors currently agreeing to mediate actually think there was more than a 100,000 people at the rally, despite no good information to support it. They have vigorously opposed any citations that point out how substantial CBS's number is, and any good citation that questions the bogus NBC 300,000 estiamte. I also have to wonder why having under 1000K at the rally is somehow shameful or disappointing. If you could interest Zeno and IP209 in joining, I might be interested, but right now, I hardly have the patience. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation is an incredibly useful tool in that the mediator, as a neutral party, can facilitate absolute rationality. If the dispute is about the article Sky and party A's argument is that the sky is clearly green, the mediator simply says, in a neutral and balanced manner, "could you state your sources for that?". And if Xeno is User:Xenophrenic: he is already participating in the mediation. Regards, AGK 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiposter0123

Hi AGK, is it correct that the mediation will be rejected if one party does not respond? That is what it seems from my survey of some archived requests. My issue is that I would like Wikiposter0123 to participate, but he has made just one edit since Sept. 8th and appears to be inactive, so I don't want the case to be rejected if he doesn't respond. If I am incorrect that mediation will be rejected if one party doesn't respond, then I have no problem keeping him listed. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the participants of a dispute must be listed in any respective mediation request. But the chairperson has some discretion in allowing a request to be accepted if a small number of parties do not respond to the request because of inactivity. I suspect I may be more receptive to the prospect of accepting cases without the consent of inactive/semi-retired parties than most of my predecessors as chairman have been. Looking again at Wikiposter0123, I do not think it would be helpful to wait for him to log back onto Wikipedia, because he appears to not have done so for a number of weeks (and if you ignore that one instance on 27 September, for over a month). So long as we can secure the consent of User:The Artist, I will be willing to accept the request without waiting for Wikiposter. AGK 13:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. The Artist just agreed to mediation. BS24 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Maybe this sounds naive

...But how do I respond to it? Just say, "OK?"

I'll do so, if I figure out the right page/place. Thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. AGK 14:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re tree shaping

In regards to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Arborsculpture

Please see the comments of SilkTork and RegentsPark on the matter.

I dropped by here to see how matters were getting along, and am saddened (but not entirely surprised) that there is still an ongoing dispute over the use of the terms arborsculpture and tree shaping. Various editors have offered Third opinions, advice, assistance and informal mediation on this matter. I mediated for quite some time. So that route has already been explored. It appears that whatever decision is made regarding the use of arborsculpture and tree shaping, one party will object, therefore informal mediation via the Mediation Cabal is not appropriate - it would simply be perpetuating the existing problem. You may try stepping up to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee - that is accepted as the next stage in a dispute resolution. The Committee is a more formal mediation body. if people are serious about solving this dispute, then use Mediation Committee rather than Mediation Cabal. SilkTork *YES! 09:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think silktork has said it right. The naming discussion is not going to be resolved through the mediation cabal because it is a weak form of mediation and, whatever the outcome, one side or the other is not going to accept it. The naming discussion has gone on fruitlessly for an excessively long time and, since it appears that even the alternative names suggested by colincbn are not getting sufficient traction, the mediation committee may be the only way to go. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tree_shaping#Straw_poll_.28Mediation.29

AfD hero (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look. I might have called this wrong. AGK 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. AfD hero (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I think I should have accepted this. But please understand that it may be a good month or more before a mediator becomes available for your case. The MedCom's workload is large at present. AGK 23:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcticocean&oldid=389416224"