This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wikizach. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello again Wikizach. I just wanted to tell you that I will be leaving for a few days, and I wanted to know if you would take charge of my mediation. If you can't do it, please tell me, and I'll look for someone else. |
Here is where we are discussing the topic. It seems that everyone involved has accused another of something; some have even had RFIs. They are arguing over the materiel in the article and the sources. The article was blocked from editing by User:Shell Kinney in order for mediation to run more smoothly; it worked for a while, but it seems they have abandonded it, and are now arguing on the main talk page. I have asked them to say their opinions on the matter, and they have all done so, exept for Edditor. I was waiting for him to respond in order to continue the mediation. My next step would be to suggest a way to fix the problem, addressing the most important points, and see if they liked it (by vote). Is this a good step? I'll still be helping until about 5:00PM (UTC) tomorrow. | AndonicOTalk | Sign Here15:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
We recently have seen the participation of Gwen Gale, but he/she appears to already have been burned out and is leaving. Are you going to join in or was Gwen taking filling in for you? Initially, this will take a high degree of effort to enroll Duke53 and Sqrjn in the process. They are very resistant to anything that opposes their POV. However, with effort from a neutral party I think success is possible. Storm Rider(talk)01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand and expected as much. Of course, with the holiday it was also expected. I was just concerned when I saw Gwen Gale's seemingly to throw her hands. I was also confused thinking possibly the two of you were working together. It is not going anywhere and I am not aware that extending the time period hurts a positive outcome. Cheers. Storm Rider(talk)01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I just read your comment on the talk page; it may help if the page was aware of who you are and your purpose? If you already provided it or have already talked with the others; I apologize. I think the group will be cooperative and provide an itemized list of issues; however, I do not think it a long one. Please give it a day for responses and if possible provide a description, I am not sure that all of the editors understand the purpose and parameters of the mediation cabal. Storm Rider(talk)01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding quicker, but I have been very busy with work. I will not be able to respond until tomorrow. Could you please wait for my response? If not, I understand; however, I do think the discussion has already highlighted conflicts. I will talk with you soon. Cheers. Storm Rider(talk)00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
A poll?
In regard to this edit... I don't think that your approach to reaching consensus, that is by declaring polls and conventions for specific times, is the right way to go about things. Discussion about Esperanza governance is fragmented right now, and it seems like it would be best to determine consensus once those discussions have centralized and run their course. Why give authoritarian-looking orders? -- SCZenz21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
My idea is that debate should be ended when it stops being productive (e.g. when it starts going in circles), rather than at an arbitrary time. -- SCZenz01:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you , thank you. Thank you very much. The conduct of this POV group is disgraceful.
I'd like to focus on the edits. The liars and POV propagandists will focus on everthing but, expect accusations of the gamut of WP:Alpahbert Soup, etc. as a distraction.Kiyosaki10:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Am I supposed to reply here?
Hi,
I thought I had already accepted the mediation case, perhaps I was supposed to reply on your talk page? I am fine with you mediating the case.
Hi Wikizach,
I don't think I necessarily need mediation in my case. However I would appreciate any thoughts or observations you might have if you have the time to review things. I am coming to an understanding of how things work at Wikipedia, and I believe that generally the policies are pretty reasonable. However I believe that extensive outreach and education, both inside and outside Wikipedia, are called for. I am trying to determine how I might be able to contribute to, or maybe initiate, this kind of effort. Speaking as a newbie, one's introduction to Wikipedia can be extremely harsh. I see this as a system dynamic and not based on any evil intent. Most people seem to have good intentions at heart.
However it seems there is an inherent adversarial nature that is built into the system. I would like to see a Wikipedia grow based on a dynamic of co-creation rather than debate. Do you agree? How might we achieve this? Now that I wrote this I think I'll put it on my user page as a thought starter. I look forward to your response.Dgray xplane01:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hiya, I'm looking for someone with mediator experience to help out in a dispute at a guideline page. Would you be interested in helping? :) --Elonka21:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay here are things in a nutshell, as neutrally as I can manage: There is a dispute about how to name television episode articles, which boils down to whether or not some series can choose to use a consistent suffix such as (<seriesname> episode). Some editors think that all episodes of all series should use this format; some think that no episodes should ever use a suffix, unless specifically required for disambiguation purposes; and some editors feel that it makes sense to look at things on a "by series" basis. For example, the Star Trek WikiProject debated this many months ago, and decided on a consistent system (see the subcategories in Category:Star Trek episodes). A few other WikiProjects chose consistent systems as well, so the "consistent" method has been used on thousands of Wikipedia articles, though the majority of television episode articles on Wikipedia choose the "Disambiguate only when needed" method.
A few weeks ago, when one of the "consistent method" projects filed a routine move request to move one of the articles to a suffix, this caught the attention of one of the "disambiguate only when needed" editors, and a dispute started. It's gradually escalated from that one episode page, to the WikiProject level, and now to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) page, where the debate has been raging hot and heavy for weeks now, and the guideline page itself has been the victim of edit wars.
The "disambiguate only when needed" camp is adamant that the guideline should be enforced as policy, and any "consistent method" series should be changed. The WikiProject side says that the WikiProjects should be allowed to set their own guidelines, to use what makes the most sense for their series.
A poll was started on October 30 to try and bring in further comment, but since there was not agreement on how the poll was to be worded, the poll's wording was being drastically changed during its run, such that multiple people complained that the things they were "voting" for were changed around, and others said that they weren't going to participate in the poll until it was re-run in a clean manner. However, the (biased) poll ended with a seeming majority for the "disambiguate only when needed" camp, who now of course are refusing to consent to a new poll.
The situation is further confused by the fact that some editors participating are only able to post an opinion once every few days, while other editors seem to be on a more 24-hour schedule, and the "fast-posting" editors are frequently drowning out the comments of the slower editors. This has been exacerbated by a great deal of incivility and personal attacks, ranging from name-calling to deleting other editors' posts off the page. Dissenting voices are routinely attacked as being a "lone voice", "sore loser", "whiner," etc. Additional stress has been added by some editors who have (in my opinion prematurely) declared "consensus", and launched into massive moving sprees, where hundreds of articles in what had previously been stable categories are now being moved to a different format.
Repeated attempts to run a new poll have been blocked, and multiple offers of compromise have been rejected. So, it's time to call in a mediator, and see if we can break the logjam. It's my hope that things might be helped considerably by bringing in an informal mediator first, but if that doesn't work, we may have to proceed to more formal mediation or ArbCom.
Elonka has been very good at manipulating summaries of the situation at hand.
The fact of the matter is that no rational reason for exception from said guideline has even been demonstrated in the first place. The vast majority of editors involved in this situation have agreed with the standard case to disambig only when necessary, and all with good and rational reasons to do so.
The poll in question was changed twice by Elonka herself, where I had to revert the poll back (before anyone had voted). I even went step by step to see who who voted under what poll format and found that only three editors might have not been clear on what they voted on. This was later re-enforced by User:Wknight94 going to everyone's talk page and asking them to confirm what opinion they had about the matter. The more and more we looked, the more we saw that there was no major confusion. In addition, we've noted several times that the poll is only one method to find people's opinion on the matter, and that discussion far outweighs the poll itself.
The consensus has become clear, but Elonka continues to try to create the illusion that there is anything else to discuss on the matter. It has gotten to the point where both Elonka and another user, User:MatthewFenton, have become down right disruptive, in this matter and others. The naming conventions of episode articles is not what needs mediation, but rather the few editors who are still causing a disruption despite a rational consensus. -- Ned Scott02:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the matter of disruption, I would point to User talk:Ned Scott, where polite reminders about civility have been deleted by him with such edit summaries as "rm trolling".[1][2] See also other civility warnings on the page: [3]. Many other diffs available upon request. :) --Elonka03:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka has left several civility messages on editors in the discussion. Most have disagreed with her assessment of their comments. I can find many, many examples of this if you wish. Also note that three of the four users who left me these notes are directly involved in the Lost dispute, and the fourth seemed to tag along for the ride when he was involved in an unrelated discussion with me. These messages are just another attempt by Elonka to discredit those who disagree with her. I have yet to receive any valid examples of incivility, or be "warned" by someone who was not in direct disagreement with what I was saying (i.e., 3rd party, or maybe one of the five administrators who were involved, etc). -- Ned Scott03:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have, and he's agreed to it. But the other parties must agree too. Only problem is if they reject it, since ArbCom by design does not handle content. – Chacor22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Take care when removing comments from "nonmembers". One of the biggest beefs that people have with us at Esperenza is that we are exclusive and isolationist, and EVERY part of wikipedia is supposed to be open to EVERY user, registered or not. If we want to improve Esperanza's image among its critics, removing valid comments by "nonmembers" will not help. --Jayron3204:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
straw poll
Might I suggest you specify strict eligibility requirements? Polls are open invitations to sockpuppets and otherwise irrelevent allies. Moreover, as I noted on the talk page, I'd like you consider avoiding a poll altogether, since it would be unscientific: Encyclopedic verifiability is not measurable through polling. Gwen Gale19:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Understood, only as a status tool, where previously unheard from users get no weight... and the poll itself has no sway on content, sounds ok. Gwen Gale16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that contributing questions to this poll really accomplishes anything ... everybody is already aware of the main participants' opinions on this matter. The only other purpose of the poll will be to allow new, seldom-seen (or never-seen) editors make their opinions known. What time today is the poll going to be posted? I will be away from my computer most of tomorrow and would like for my vote to count in it. Duke53 | Talk00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"If you have any question you wished to be asked, please send me a message on my talk page. The poll will start tomorrow (25 hours) WikieZach| talk 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)" What exactly did you mean when you posted the above statement ? Duke53 | Talk09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"i made a mistake". WikieZach| talk 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC). Perhaps more than one mistake; why did you invite visor ? It almost appears that you are waiting to get a 'green light' from someone before you submit the straw poll. Duke53 | Talk20:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Like Gwen and Duke, I don't really see how a straw poll will help us move toward consensus. But in response to your request for questions I'll suggest the following: 1) Should the word "kidnap" be used? 2) Should the NPOV criteria be applicable to verified quotes to include them in the article? (That is, if a quote is introduced that supports one POV, to keep neutrality a quote supporting the alternative POV would need to be given similar prominence.) 3) Should the article avoid using material that the original, published source describes as based on legend, oral tradition, or otherwise of doubtful reliability? BRMo02:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I have not chimed in until now I was not near the computer much yesterday. I think aside from the arguments that have been discussed adnauseum the poll should ask: Specifically, what is and is not appropriate for content for the article (i.e. what is the scope of the article). Then what is the minimum standard of verifiability. I think once those two things are established, hopefully, some of the stuff like "kidnap" and "rape" would be more of a no-brainer because we could show they do or to not meet the established criteria.
Also the article is cluttered with stuff thrown in to either vindicate or make the people of SE look like idiots but is in itsself irrelevent to mountain meadows. With this we could have a standard of what should be removed.
For example, the article currently states that Washington City was considering a statue of John D. Lee. This have nothing do do with mountain meadows (although it would be appropriate for an article on John D. Lee). Also from the way it was written it is obvious it is done to show POV. For example the article does not even mention that JD Lee was a founding father of Washington city, and that is why they considered the statue. City officials were fully aware it would be a controversial action because of mountain meadows. But again why is this even in the article in the first place?
Davemeistermoab22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Medcabal-thumb wrestling
yeah, the thumb wrestling one seems pretty open-and-shut. I know we're not supposed to take sides, but it clearly looks like an NPOV violation, although I'm interested to hear what you think. As for the homosexuality one, I don't know...its a civil pdispute, but a volatile issue. This is a powderkeg. Let me know wha you thought of my intro there. With LGBT issues, it can be difficult to reach a consensus. Antimatter01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think I need your help with the thumb wrestling article...it's a little harder than I figured. I can't seem to initiate any sort of civil dialogue between the two parties, they're arguing over some trivial technicalities, despite my best efforts, they don't even seem to like any of my compromise offers. Any ideas? Antimatter---talk--- 02:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Mountain Meadows
I don't really consider myself part of the current dispute, however, I've commented as I've done academic research in this area, and am an intersted party and want common sense to be represented. I am amazed that the folks involved don't really understand the topic (on both sides). I've tried to guage the understanding of folks, but people in that have so many "pet" words and phrases they feel they need to communicate that they are blinded. I think that it is fairly obvious who is doing research in published journals and primary sources, and who is using message boards as their research methods (on both sides). They can't even figure out the geography and timeline. My suggestion is to require those involved, in some way, to read at least two of the sources - such as the Final Confession of John D. Lee [4] (definitely critical of the church, but also fair). To me the big issue seems to be:
Should we use of the word "kidnapped," (or other loaded words)?
Should we use long quotes (even if they push POV (on both sides) and duplicate inforamtion?
Should we allow non-published/original research (I've left mine out, except in disucssion page discussions)?
Should we lead the reader to conclusions or drawing conclusions where no evidence exists (rape, and other folklore)
Will the three of the editors on both sides (mormon and non-mormon) of the arguemnt continue refuse to work together or have any sort of compromise (Duke, Sjrin and Storm Rider)? Incidentally, I find that sort of behavior unacceptable to the wikipedia process.
Likewise, I don't consider myself part of any dispute. So long as citations are used to reference the source of disputed details and undue weight to any particular PoV is avoided I don't think it'd be too hard to edit a helpful, encyclopedic article. A suggested straw poll question:
Are you willing to collaborate in an editing project tentatively named Mountain Meadows Massacre Editing Cabel (or whatever) with the stated goal of doing whatever it takes (editorially speaking) to put this article into a form whereby it would be very likely to be chosen as a featured article? Gwen Gale15:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the dispute between myself and Mystar, could I ask if it was not continued because Mystar failed to engage, or did I miss out on on a step I should have taken?
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: RFM
Hi. I edited the "issue" statement [5] for clarification, but it was reverted by User:Regebro. I hope you can step in and merge the changes. Again, it is mainly for clarification and accuracy. Thanks. --Vsion17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Rather than notifying multiple administrators via their talk pages, as you have been doing,[6][7][8] please post your complaint about the user and their page moves to WP:ANI. Please include diffs to any relevant information. This way, several admins can discuss the situation in one place and decide together what action (if any) should be taken. Thanks very much, Johntex\talk02:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This message delivered: 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Block request
I note that you have been asking several admins on their talk page if they would block a certain user for page moving. However, this issue is already under discussion on WP:ANI, which should get you the admin attention you need. Also, contrary to your claim, the MedCom has specifically said (on ANI) they do not endorse blocking this user. Since you are supposed to be mediating this very issue, I find this behavior inappropriate, and I would ask you to retrect your request. Thank you for your time. (Radiant) 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This message delivered: 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Hello there, my name is Peter M Dodge and I go by the handle Wizardry Dragon on Wikipedia. While I am not a member of the Mediation Committee proper I have offered to mediate this case. If this is okay with you, I would like to proceed. Please let me know either way, and if you have any issues with this please let me know so I may try to address them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the permission. I'm sure you're hesitant to wade into the quagmire of the arbitration, but the finding might carry more weight if it comes from you. I completely understand if you don't have the time or the inclination to submit the evidence yourself, but on the off chance that you do, the evidence page is here. Just let me know whether you're willing to submit it yourself, or if you'd prefer me to handle it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.
Help out now!
Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.
Decision Making
The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.
If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.
Hello, this is to inform you that I restored your deleted Oppose vote on the Charter Proposal Voting page. I strongly feel that deleting votes is wrong, and though it may not have been your intent, deleting votes creates the impression of being less than honest. I did put your former Oppose vote within strikethrough tags as seen here (<s> and </s>), so that the vote is visible but understood to have been subsequently changed or withdrawn. I hope you understand, and if you have further questions about this, please ask me. Thank you. --Kyoko15:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for understanding my motives, and also let me say that I'm glad that you feel strongly enough about Esperanza to say something. I find it somewhat disquieting that for an organisation with hundreds of members, perhaps some 20 or 30 at most have felt strongly enough about it to do something related to the MfD or the overhaul. --Kyoko19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
EA charter draft
Hi Wikizach, I'm sorry that I won't be able to participate in drafting the charter, because I will be on vacation and likely offline shortly. --Kyoko20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought it was obvious - "we are a school in Georgia", is not an article, does not extablish notability (there are guidelines for notability for schools) and unsourced. All of these are criteria for speedy deletion. It doesn't even establish country, although you would assume it was the US state.
I notice that you had contributed to previous creations of the article. If you want to write a proper article for it, let me know and I'll lift the protection. Please note that I'll be away for about 48 hours once I log off this am. Jimfbleak.talk.107:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. After speaking to a party of this case, I think it has pretty much faded into the background. For that reason, I will be closing the mediation soon unless you have any opposition to this. If so, please drop me a talk page note. Thanks. —Xyrael / 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Charter, charter, charter, oh my!
When those proposals went through an IRC discussion and that survey yes/no vote, I never actually got much feedback beyond
Did the no voters have problems with the governance section, or the whole thing?
The last charter vote was better, but still flawed. Questions like "Should we keep the Advisory council in its current structure with 7 members?" or "Should we abolish the idea of membership entirely?" are great to see if something has overwhelming support (like electing an AG directly, if we have one). But they're useless for suggesting change unless an alternative is proposed. Okay, there's a vote that says the AC should change. How, exactly? Less members? No regular elections? Or scrap all together? If you scrap it all together, what's the alternative method of co-ordinating Esperanza?
I'd still like to work on my own proposal for now, but I'd be happy to look at yours and discuss any issues with you - is there a sandbox or something you're working in? If there's points that we agree on, and that the community's supported in the past, we can always put the same point in both charters. The main reason I want to keep a list of separate proposals for now is so that people can choose between fully fleshed out alternatives, not just vague ideas. Saying "I don't like it" is useless. But if someone agrees with everything in X's charter but governance, they can write a new "mini-charter", with just a governance section, then say "Everything else: as per X's charter." Quack 68804:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem I see with putting up just one charter is that it can be voted down, without any proper alternatives put up. If there's a list of fleshed out alternatives, and people like half of one, and half of the other, we can combine them relatively easily. For example, I liked the idea of program co-ordinators, and I like the idea of an AC. But instead of having elections to choose the AC, then choosing some of them to co-ordinate programs, we could do it in reverse - have elections for program co-ordinators, then call that group the AC. Frankly, I'm not sure about this idea, but it's more likely to be supported, and it preserves the key idea of a group of elected people, not just one.
Putting up a single charter should be the very, very last step in the process - everyone's already agreed to the ideas within it, and everyone just has to formally sign it by saying "Support". Since people are still arguing over governance, I don't think we've reached this stage yet.
By the way, what are you working on in your charter? Do you have any thoughts about the mission and principles section in mine? If so, I'd like to hear them. If not, how about we agree on those sections, and just work up a couple of governance proposals, based on the polls and discussions, since that's where the friction is? Quack 68806:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
May you and your family have a Merry Christmas, as well as any other Holiday you may celebrate. I hope that warmth, good cheer, and love surround you during these special days. May God bless you during the Holidays. | AndonicOTalk | Sign Here01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
1st, big thx for volunteering, then, do we tell u that we're aware mediation has started? ⇒bsnowball 14:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Sandbox/Wikizach. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. —Pilotguy (ptt)19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
you asked for my opinion on the dispute: i think the pic thing is a trivial distraction & can be sorted out by an 'authoritative' pronouncement on 'fair use' as that's the only substantial objection raised to them. otherwise the major issue is the edit warring which one assumes will continue, (i notice one annon is still interested enough...). can we agree that on unblock that page remains move & sprotected? & try to come to some agreement over structure of the page, get everyone to agree to only use r s etc. i also have an issue with the page name, which is effectively a racist insult in it's trivialising of these deaths. (i tried to get it moved, see archive, have discussed this further on med. page.) but the most important issue seems to be coming to some sort of consensus on how to proceed so the page can be unblocked. thnx again, good luck :) ⇒bsnowball09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if this sounds rude, but you can't expect a statement like this:
Please give your statements of your opionions on the dispute of this page below, since I will make a compromise on February 1st, 2007
to encourage a page of edit-warring parties to contribute sensibly. This is totally inappropriately phrased - it is not up to you to "make a compromise", it is up to all the parties who are involved in editing the article to agree to any compromise. And, as far as I can tell, you aren't even an administrator and cannot enforce any compromise since the article is still locked for editing. Without trying to be disparaging of the Mediation Cabal this is not the forum which the problem should have been taken to - the parties involved are not inclined to discuss this in an informal way, a lot of them feel very strongly about the issues raised at the article. It may have been more appropriate to try the real Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Thankyou. QmunkE20:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Request for assistance
Hiya Wikizach,
Ive been a little busy over the holidays so i couldnt get back to you.
Which articles were you wanting to help on? 2 ive already closed as half of the parties werent interested in mediating, and 2 i think im done on, get back to me!
Ah yes, i missed the link the first time around. I think im actually done with that one, i havent heard back from one party but the other seems quite happy with the outcome. Thankyou for the offer to help tho, i much appreciate it, if you need anything, let me know,
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot08:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
NEWSLETTER
Bearly541 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
