Jump to content

User talk:Feezo/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

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 remove this notice 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?

--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)

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)

Just one note - "The Beatles' set" of articles I was talking about to Feezo here is a lot more than the one article "The Beatles". And their talk pages - which editors read even if they aren't making active article edits - are where much of the toxic behavior is played out. You might recall John Lennon and its talk page sometime around late 2010 or so, for example. So please don't conjure up red herrings, laced with insults and personal attacks, and then proceed to post them around the encyclopedia. My involvement with Beatles-related articles, as you well know, was not confined to that one article. Tvoz/talk 23:06, 20 October 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)
  • For the record -- in the hours & days before poll closure, there were a number of !votes that look suspiciously like single purpose accounts. Many have been tagged with {{spa}}. Although there are some on both sides of the aisle, there was a slew on the lowercase side that all have the same hallmarks: i.e., no WP contributions before Sept 16 (or later), with what contributions there are being extremely minor re-wordings and/or grammatical adjustments across a random collection of articles. Specific instances include: talk, talk, talk, talk, and talk. There may be others. If I'm in error about any or all of these, my apologies.
What makes this all the more dubious is that, as of poll closing, the percentage for uppercase is exactly 66.6666666. Coincidence? The skeptic in me can't help but suspect that a little manipulation has been going on. I hope I'm wrong, because otherwise it's clear that the poll has been seriously compromised. Jburlinson (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I assume you mean "the percentage for lowercase is exactly 66.6666666". That's an obvious coincidence, not an intentional Satanic manipulation. Though I am not one bit surprised that within two hours of the poll's closing you come here with accusations of "manipulation" and casting aspersions: "it's clear that the poll has been seriously compromised". Too funny Burlinson, how embarrassingly desperate of you. Even if there are socks in the poll, NYB will find them and their small % amounts to next to nill. Also, FTR, I noticed you tagged a few editors with several dozen edits outside the topic, but thanks for playing poll cop. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I have full confidence in Newyorkbrad's ability to identify and deal with any sock puppetry. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:17, 15 October 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

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)

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 remove this notice 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)
Even though this has little to no chance of passing, I appreciate the effort to see it through. At least now, we are covered in regard to future claims of poll exclusivity or that "we" intentionally limited exposure. We tried, that's enough for me, so thanks Hiding and Feezo. I still don't see why one sentence that can be dismissed with the click of a mouse is a big deal, but hey, sometimes Wikipedians (myself included) can take this project a little too seriously. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn

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

Restatement

I've restated my rebuttal of Rothorpe's position because I find it so much at odds with how we do things on Wikipedia that it can't stand without one. Given that you previously collapsed my rebuttal, I am letting you know of it's restatement in case there is some wrinkle in clarifying policy that I am missing. I am now withdrawing from the debate and wish you luck in shepherding it to a conclusion. I apologise if I have added to your workload in any way. Best regards, see you on the other side! Hiding T 08:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Hiding — I collapsed that part of the thread simply because it seemed to be over. Obviously I was mistaken about this. It was intended as a non-controversial act of maintenance, as I have no special authority on that page. If you want to uncollapse it and/or move your reply, please feel free. It was not my intention to prevent you from rebutting, so I apologize for giving that impression. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for advice

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

Beatles outcome

Greetings, Feezo. Though I haven't participated, I've been keeping an eye on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. The top of the page now says that the poll closed on October 15, and that the results will be announced within a week. That was more than two weeks ago. So, where can I see the results? I thought they'd be posted on the same page, but perhaps I'm mistaken, as I'm not very familiar with the mediation process. Thanks. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater (Talk) 08:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry it's taking longer than expected. Newyorkbrad is the designated closer, so you could try asking him (there's a thread on the subject here). The closure, when it happens, should be on the poll page. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! — Mudwater (Talk) 09:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Request Catapult be unprotected

Hello. I just noticed that the article Catapult is protected and searched the history to determine why. It seems that a year and a half ago there was persistent vandalism of the article and you protected the page. I'm pretty sure the vandal has moved on to other activities and has forgotten all about this article. Since you were the protecting admin, I'd like to ask if you agree the page may now safely be unprotected. Oh, btw, if you would be so kind... there is a grammatical error in the second sentence of the "Leonardo da Vinci's catapult" section. It reads "His design incorporated used a large wooden..." If you could remove either the word "incorporated" or the word "used", it would be much appreciated. Thank you. 67.51.68.206 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Done — let me know if you need anything else. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Spam-guy

I'm not quite sure how to flag this account, but the fellow driving it seems to be going around and changing various external links to point at vaguely-related but incorrect Wordpress sites. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Standard protocol is to put a template from WP:UTN on the user's talk page, then make a report on WP:AIV if the behavior doesn't stop. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation archives

Where can one find these archives, I can't seem to locate it. Thanks ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles/Archive 1. I see that there wasn't any link to it from the mediation page - I've added an archive box there to make it easier to find. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 04:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Strad! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Beatles closure discussion

Hey Feezo, do you know, does NYB intend to discuss his closure with the parties to the mediation prior to the 13 November deadline? Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
What would be SOP? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want a guess, I would say that Newyorkbrad is probably intending to address the comments and questions that have been raised in a follow-up post after November 13th. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Questions. - 1) Why did Brad seem to give us a preset deadline for this mediation? Am I misunderstanding him? Is 13 November the agreed upon end of the mediation? Shouldn't it end when its properly resolved and not arbitrarily? 2) If the loose-ends currently detailed there aren't worked out before the mediation ends, can parties to the mediation request an extension? I mean, I really hate to drag this out any longer, but we wanted/needed/asked for closure, and as it sits right now, there are a couple of details that need to be clarified. 3) Before the poll went live, the parties to the mediation and the mediators agreed that you and Strad should and would "certify" Brad's closure. Do you still intend to do that? Thanks and cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Strad and I are currently discussing the particulars of opening this line of discussion. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Feezo, but please don't feel rushed by my ping. At this point, what's a few more days, weeks or even months ... well, let's hope it doesn't come to that. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the proper place to talk about user conduct regarding your deletion of my comment in Mr. Strad's talk page? Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have a concern about something I've done, well then you're in the right place. What seems to be the trouble? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Because of how the closure of the "the/The" dispute turned out because of GabeMc's heavyhandedness, I have quit working on all articles regarding The Beatles. I will continue to use "The Beatles" in midsentence when that band is mentioned by name as a noun despite the new consensus which GabeMc pushed. I want absolutely no contact with GabeMc at all. "The Beatles" is still the legal name of the band and is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2012
Anybody declaring they will not abide by consensus is detriment to the project. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
As I already stated, Binksternet, I HAVE QUIT THE PROJECT!!! Do I make myself clear?? Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite

Hello Feezo. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

YGM

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Feezo; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Restricted-use media list

An RfC that may interest you has been opened at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Restricted-use media list, so please come and include your opinion. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 09:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Feezo/Archive_7&oldid=1136188457"