User talk:Ideogram/Archive 2

RHCP mediation

I've responded on the RHCP talk page, but mentioning it here as well...

I'm sick of the abuse from Anthony, aka User:ReadyMade, aka User:172.209.222.*, possibly aka User:172.141.134.240 I've asked him to cool it before and during this mediation. Please do consider partial protection on the page at the least. -- Xinit 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked and will continue to ask him to avoid personal attacks every time he makes one.

I am personally not able to provide semi-protection (remember I have no power) but I will try to help you get it if you stay calm and work with me in this mediation. Ideogram 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am remaining calm, and I've been outlining my position point-by-point, citing my reasons using WP policy, guidelines, and styles... I don't see how I'm not calm. I'm not responding to the abuse in kind, though I have deleted it from the talk page, as I am allowed to do. Regarding the WP:BITE, I really would like to know how I've bitten Anthony. I suppose it would be in bad form to go remove EL from the kylie minogue page at this time... :) -- Xinit 17:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "I'm sick of the abuse" indicates impatience and is inflammatory. Simply stating "No personal attacks please." gets the point across without ruffling feathers. Ideogram 17:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, take a break for lunch and look what happens. Since much of the EL issues seem to originate from "anonymous" users, I can only see restricting the page to logged in users as a way to keep it sane in the short term. I'm not sure who to approach on that front; you have a link handy? You would think that by answering questions directly and completely would be a good thing, wouldn't you? -- Xinit 20:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I might have gotten your hopes up. Close reading of the semi-protection policy page seems to indicate your case does not qualify. I have asked two other mediators (one an admin) for advice. Ideogram 21:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of your CS dungeon

An indirect consequence of our recent rambling was that I had occasion to mention the artist Huang Yong Ping, whose rather amazing retrospective I saw a couple months ago. Having mentioned him, I noticed he, unfortunately, lacked an article. So I remedied that. I don't think what I've done so far is a great article, but it gives a general sense of who Huang is. Maybe you'd like to stray out of the those narrow CS areas, and have some fun with this other topic.

I don't think you have any prior knowledge of Huang. But then, mine was limited to seeing his exhibit, reading the museum program, and finding what I could on the web. Actually seeing his, often large scale, stuff up close made a strong impression; you can find photos of most of what I saw on the web, but much art is certainly more impactful in person. LotLE×talk 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the article when I noticed you adding it to your User page. Interesting.

But I really do prefer technical subjects. And, as you've probably noticed, I love a good argument. Ideogram 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mediating Hubbert peak theory

I'm the one who asked for mediation, in hope that things would quiet down. I'm glad you're doing this. It seems to be helping. It's an important enough topic that it deserves a good article; whether a big oil shortage is coming soon actually matters, and Wikipedia should have valid information. (Compare "List of Lost episodes vs. Episodes of Lost (season 2)", another pending mediation). So I'd appreciate it if you don't give up too easily, even if it takes extra effort. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally took the mediation because I wanted to learn more about the subject. But I can't work with a user who views so many of my statements with suspicion, "advises" me to avoid certain phrases, and forces me to justify my recommendations. Remember I have no power.

If you really want to continue the dispute resolution process, you can:

Ask for another member of medcabal: they are likely to try to assert control in the same manner I did, with the same reaction from this user.
Issue a Request for Comment: this might attract some more objective parties, but it might not and this user might reject their right to interfere.
Seek formal mediation: that is still a voluntary process, so this user is unlikely to cooperate.
And, if all of the above fail, Seek arbitration.

I am happy to help you with any of the above options, read WP:DR for details. Fundamentally this user doesn't believe there is a problem. If his opponent doesn't return, there may not be a problem. In any case, feel free to talk to me here at any time. Ideogram 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait a few days, and not make any edits to that article. If things stay quiet, maybe then we can move forward a bit at a time. I'm not even entirely clear what RandomP (talk · contribs) and ruber chiken (talk · contribs) are so upset about. Both of them made some good points, but the edit war got out of hand. Things have quieted down for now, so the mediation effort did have some effect. Thanks. --John Nagle 22:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions concerning mediation

RandomP recently brought up some questions concerning your mediation of Hubbert peak theory. See his specific questions at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Complaints_archive#RFC. Looking through the talk page, things do look a bit confusing. It may be a good idea to outline specifically what happened there, as I don't quite understand it myself.

However, there are a few comments I'd like to make. It appears that in the case very little guidance was given to those involved in the dispute (and the archival of the talk page made it more difficult to find what the dispute was). Perhaps if next time you explain what exactly is the problem (I.E. reiterate what was on the case page). Also, you appear to be juggling many cases at once. I would recommend you try to work on maybe 2 or 3 at a time _at most_, as otherwise people begin to lose their minds.

Concerning your request that people refrain from editing the article during mediation and mentioning that if someone refuses to mediate they may be looked upon negatively, I think that saying is intimidating to those involved. No one is obligated to accept mediation, as stated on the Mediation Cabal main page. Basically, I suggest that you work on fewer cases at a time so you can dedicate more time to them and make it as clear as possible what people want and should hopefully get from mediation. Also, asking for help from other mediatiors is encouraged as well to make sure that everything is going smoothly. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm looking at other pages where you are helping mediate, and it seems that there is a lack of instructions and guidelines for people to follow. I would recommend that you start off with a direct question asking for an answer to get a response from those involved to see all sides of the story first, and to outline what exactly is needed through mediation. The lack of instructions is confusing for people who want to get involved, and if they have a question to answer it could get things rolling. Cowman109^Talk 22:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replies on my talk page

Not sure if you are monitoring. I'll be replying on my page to keep discussions unthreaded.

Mediation

I am willing to continue to participate in this mediation. However, if Kirok doesn't pull back on the sarcasm and the taunts ("talk to the hand" and the latest "obediant servant" stuff), I don't see how mediation can get us anywhere. Please note that I'm not responding in kind. — Mike • 00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have respected his initial request for a time out by not responding. Let's wait and see. Ideogram 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sarcasm, I will continue to ask him not to do it, but if you want the mediation to continue you may just have to ignore it. It doesn't really qualify as a personal attack. Ideogram 05:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

You need to inform Anoranza as well. NSLE 09:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programming language and WP:3RR

Greetings! The history of every page is avilable for all to see, such as here. Each time I refreshed the page, I saw that it kept changing, and as an editor, I decided to find out why.

The purpose of the WP:3RR rule is to, 1) get editors to simmer down; and 2) to talk out differences instead of engaging in Wikipedia:Edit wars. This not only leads to a less hostile environment, but even-handed editors are more thoughtful, open-minded, and logical, leading to better, more well-rounded articles. I hope you understand why this policy is beneficial to Wikipedians. Your civil tone thusfar indicates to me that you do, and it is appreciated very much. I look forward to working together with you in the future. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

thank you for taking over the Russo-Turkish War case.

I was awaiting Ghirlandajo's response, which I never received. I was going to close the case, which I recommend that you do. Geo.plrd 18:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to mediate Greg Bravo (Gary Scott). I have added it to Articles for Deletion. Do I need to add my reasoning to the discussion page of the deletion page? Do I cast a vote? Is there anyone else in the world beside Musicknight and myself who have an interest? --Fortheloveofhampsters 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Valiant Effort

Yeah -- I've given up on the mediation. And my parting comments weren't my most shining moment of graciousness, I'll certainly admit. But did want to say thank you for your efforts anyway, and my honest apology to you that my decision to withdraw from the mediation rendered them unfruitful. I apologize to you for same. I just honestly didn't think there was anything lying before us on that path but a great deal of anger, frustration, and butting heads. Anyway, again, thanks. And hopefully if we meet in a different context, you'll find me a more amiable and useful Wikipedia editor. — Mike • 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I really thought this mediation would be successful, but I won't try to argue with you. Ideogram 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

I have filed an RFAR against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Añoranza. Ideogram 09:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your attempts of dispute resolution? Añoranza 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Adam - Thanks for your time on our mediation case. The original request for mediation page included a suggestion that it might be possible to communicate with a mediator outside Wikipedia. If that is possible then I would appreciate it. Could you email me[1]?. There are aspects of this that I can't put in the public domain but you should be aware of. - Pdean 08:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "message" template

You have no sense of humor . (last change).

- CobaltBlueTony 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Ideogram 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russo Turkish War Mediation

Thanks for taking up the case previously. I know you closed it, however the moment i edited the article Ghirlandajo was back with his revert tactics. As he does not respond to me, perhaps you would have more luck getting through to him? CheersSuicup 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) vandalism

I've made a request for the semi-protection, and I'll keep you updated. Thanks. —Xyra e l _{/ 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I'm sorry, there may have been some mistake - I'm not an administrator so I can't block people. You may like to take a look at WP:AN. Thanks. —Xyra e l _{/ 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Russo-Turkish War, 1877-1878

Hello, again. I looked at the difficulty you're having in the case concerning Russo-Turkish War, 1877-1878, and the took interest in the comment you left on Ghirlanda's talk page (see diff). I think the comment you left may have come off as a threat, so it may be better in the future to not mention that further dispute resolution will be seen to if a user does not respond. Instead, civilly asking them to come to the talk page to explain their reasoning would be best so they don't feel threatened. I will try leaving a message on his talk page to ask him to discuss it as well and see if that does anything. If he does not respond, things may eventually be under the area of WP:3RR. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. Better honey than vinegar. Ideogram 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above - as you may be aware, there are many people who don't support Ghirla's incivl behaviour. Have you seen his RfC?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, if someone is not civil to you that does not mean you should be incivil to them. WP:CIVIL sums that all up quite nicely. Cowman109^Talk 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you attempted to contact Ghirlanda. In my experience, he has been unresponsive, so what is the next step? Cheers.Suicup 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Anybody can make a statement on an application for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt this I just dont understand why his statement is about the content and not the user. It is not a poll which the post kind of reads like. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tony. Zer0faults, Tony isn't going to argue with you about this, it's not his job. Ideogram 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect him to, wasn't even a question, just a statement. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musicknight

This user and their sockpuppet accounts has now been blocked for one month, although the IP addresses are AOL so I will have to change to 15 minutes for them, due to the nature of AOL internet access. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. This is a huge relief. Ideogram 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]