User talk:Wissahickon Creek

This is the place to talk, discuss and question my authority. Please be nice, polite and civil in the talk page. Please leave your message and I will get back to you ASAP. Although it's more preferable to type in English, but may allow others to express their views in other languages. Yo hable espanol a poquito/je parle francais a petit. Thanks, mucho gracias, merci beaucoup.

Sig

Welcome!

Hello, Wissahickon Creek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would you mind making your signature a little less of a pain in the eye? :) Like for example removing the black background. (If you don't mind, of course). You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that was quite a pain in the eyes :) However, I will change it with another one nicer. --Wissahickon Creek 16:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk)

How about this :)? Wissahickon Creek ^talk 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA reform

Hi - I admire your enthusiasm and willingness to help solve RfA issues, but I fear you are too inexperienced as yet - most of your suggestions have been oft-discussed. Just like me, you're beginning to reinvent the wheel. I strongly suggest you study how Wikipedia works and gain some experience. I'm certainly not asking you to "clear off," just that you should obtain more knowledge as your approach is naive. Anyway, there is no quick fix to RfA issues. Rama's arrow 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rama, you're really kind.--Wissahickon Creek ^talk 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in studying the RfA process, lemme suggest the following pages: Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll, Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship, WP:DFA, WP:RFAB, user:Durin/Admin charts, User:Durin/Admin voting measures, User:Durin/RfA results, User:Durin/Admin criteria comments. Rama's arrow 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:RFR, due to a recent suggestion you made on WT:RFA. I suggest you stop making suggestions for the time being, as you seem to be ticking people off a bit by making suggestions about already-rejected proposals. They shouldn't really be biting the newcomers, but I don't actually blame them. No offense, of course. Enjoy your reading. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, please don't be mad just because I tried to help somehow.--Wissahickon Creek ^talk 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wissahickon Creek/More userpage stuff

Please be careful with pages like this. Because you didn't subst the templates, that page was in loads of categories inappropriately. It was quite a pain to undo too. So please be careful when applying templates to pages that they're not intended to be applied to. Take a look at User:Deskana/Sandbox. I've done something similar to you in one but, but I substituted the templates and removed the categories. Subst is handy because it reduces unneccesary server load, take a look at WP:SUBST. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 12:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Garcia?

Are you Mike Garcia? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you expect an honest answer to that if he was? No offense, Wissahickon. --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Mike Garcia. Of course you may verify me or keep an eye on me, I'm sure I'm unique :) --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 12:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great mediation

Hi, Wissahickon Creek. Even though I consider the category "Ancient Greek sexuality" to be a fair compromise in the case of Alexander, I'm concerned about the process and tone used in your mediation. Mediation is like diplomacy — the key isn't to determine who wins and loses, but to find a solution that's amenable to everyone. To do this, you need to listen to the arguments of both sides, and show that you've listened. You need to treat both sides with respect, and you need to be clear and nuanced in your writing. Accusing particpants of being POV pushers without showing any evidence that you've heard their concerns is not the way to convince people. A straw poll is also not the best way to reach a true consensus: all it shows is numerical strength, and it does not take arguments into account adequately. Please see Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote.

I notice that your first edit on this account is on October 22, the same day you registered with the Mediation Cabal and accepted the mediation for Alexander the Great. Perhaps you shouldn't have taken on such a challenging case as your first assignment. Remember the Irish definition of diplomacy: "the ability to tell a man to go to hell in such a way that he looks forward to the trip." This is a vital skill for a successful mediator, and one that I think you need to work on. You won't get people to accept your authority as a mediator by baldly asserting it; you'll get them to accept it by gaining their respect and trust through a careful and respectful process.

In the case of the Alexander mediation, you did not respond at all to the concern expressed by Akhilleus and Haiduc, that "Ancient Greek sexuality" does not adequately reflect the usage of scholars writing on the subject. Although, as I said, I find "Ancient Greek sexuality" to be an adequate compromise, I think that the point raised by Akhilleus and Haiduc is a legitimate one, which deserves to be addressed rather than dismissed out of hand. Your tone in saying "I take it as the final decision and I consider this case as closed" is needlessly hostile and dismissive.

Mediation is meant to improve the tone in a discussion, not to worsen it. I fear that your tone, rather than helping to convince users of the merits of "Ancient Greek sexuality", alienated some of the page's most active contributors. I would even go so far as to suggest that you bear some responsibility for lowering the tone of the discussion, to the point that Miskin (talk · contribs) felt comfortable adding this rude and borderline homophobic comment.

Please take these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. I'm not trying to challenge your decision — indeed, it reflects a position I guardedly support. However, I do have serious concerns about the manner in which your decision was reached, and I hope that you will be more deliberative, communicative and open in any future mediation you undertake. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here. Please trust me and be sure that with this formulation category "Ancient Greek sexuality" is a fair compromise in the case of Alexander. Wissahickon Creek ^talk 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was not primarily about the decision, but about the manner in which it was reached and the tone of your comments. Trust and respect are earned. Please consider the opinions of your fellow mediators, especially Keitei, who is the co-ordinator of the Mediation Cabal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar vein, please see my comments here. Your mediation strategy is not working as outlined by Josiah Rowe above and it appears you need more experience before taking on such cases. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is working since the compromise solution was found. Just because I don't support blatant POV it doensn't mean I failed with my mediation strategy. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone who disagrees with your solution that a decision has already been made isn't a good mediation strategy either. The goal is to improve the enycylopedia, not to stick rigidly to decisions that have been made in the past. I think you're locking someone out here unneccesarily. If a good faith editor comes along to you and says they disagree with you, you don't say "Sorry, decision already done". It's not constructive. Just because they weren't there at the start doesn't mean they don't have something to contribute. Please try to take a step back and think about how to solve this situation a bit better. It seems to me that you're thinking of mediatorship a bit differently to how it's meant to be. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lord Deskana, a person will always disagree when he/she is trying to impose a specific POV and doesn't accept a neutral solution. Don't you see that, for some users is hard to accept a neutral accepted solution by most editors? They will try to impose their blatant POV anyway. They don't want mediation, they want POV pushing. I did exactly what was meant to be done: supporting an NPOV solution. If one user doesn't accept it, I'm sorry. But an NPOV solution was given. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. I think perhaps you should ask another more experienced mediator to look at this case, as well. I think that might be useful. And please read the stuff at the top of my talk page before you add to it, and don't randomly append comments on the end, especially indented... it makes it seem like you're joining an already existing discussion. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice

My advice to you is simple. Get another mediator to help you with this case and take no further action on it for the time being. Please, both for your own sake and everyone elses. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm just waiting another mediator to assist me in reaching the NPOV solution. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing the case page to reflect both your desire for a more senior mediator and the desires of those involved in the mediation. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of mediation

WC, I'd like to draw your attention to the Wikipedia article on mediation. Specifically, this excerpt:

...a mediator does not impose a solution on the parties, whereas an arbitrator does.

You are attempting to act as an arbitrator, not a mediator. Please also read the section Mediation#Mediation as a method of dispute resolution, and the sub-section Mediation#Process and role of the mediator in US practice. I know that your intentions are good, and your interest in maintaining NPOV is admirable. But, as others have pointed out, you need to learn more about the process of mediation before trying to impose your interpretation of events on others.

Once again, I ask that you step down from the mediation at Alexander the Great. It is very difficult to regain trust once it is lost, and I do not think that your presence in the debate is helpful or conducive towards the development of a true consensus. I'm not objecting to your conclusion, but to your methods. Please understand that this is not an attack, but a judgment based on experience. You ask to be judged on "quality, not quantity" — I'm doing just that. I don't wish to bite the newbie, but you do need more experience before you try to help others. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Josiah, indeed ...a mediator does not impose a solution on the parties, whereas an arbitrator does. but as you can see the NPOV solution was accepted before mediation. I just reiterate the support for that NPOV solution. I will accept assistance from an old mediator. After all, I want to learn to mediate :) --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 19:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WC, I just thought I would give you some feedback on your attempt to help the situation. I was taken aback by your comment that "I don't like pov pushers." Though it is the sort of blanket statement that can apply equally well to all parties, it breaches the barrier that must remain between the contenders and the mediator. I wish you well in your career here. Haiduc 23:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wissahickon Creek, the most important thing in a mediation is that mediators never take sides. They never favor one side over the other and they give equal weight to every opinion. Everyone needs to feel that you've heard them out and that you are ensuring that the others heard them, too. This is not what you have done. You have alienated parties by calling them trolls (please read WP:NPA); you repeatedly insist that your opinion is the right one and that their opinions do not matter. This is not how one mediates. Please read the suggestions for mediators (if you haven't already, and again if you have :]) and please stop attacking good faith editors. --Keitei (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA warning

Care to explain me to me how this was a personal attack? If you fail to do so, then you are obliged to restore my edit back where it was. I don't take kindly to unjustified censorship. Miskin 16:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was viewed by a user as rude and borderline homophobic comment and he asked me, as a mediator on this page to take some attitude, which is exaclty what I did. I removed your irony not to say more.--Wissahickon Creek ^talk 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was a "personal attack" per se, but it was certainly an unproductive comment and I would agree with the removal. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Europe

Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages and follow the correct procedure. --Keitei (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

If you believe a page should be protected, feel free to make a note at WP:RFP. The admins will view your case. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

I know your intentions were good, but only administrators can semi-protect articles; some admins actually consider non-admins placing the {{sprotect}} tag on articles to be a form of vandalism. While I don't think the level of vandalism at Germany warrants semi-protection, in the future if you want to request protection you can place a request here. Good effort anyway. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Kafziel ^Talk 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

Hello Michael. I am one of the editors who you accused of POV pushing. I just want to say that I have no POV to push. My work in Wikipedia is like a "gnome" and I try to make sure that the pages conform to standards (same lists, same wording, so on). The inclusion or removal of certain entities should be discussed on the pages where these decisions are made, and should not be dealt with on a Template page. The templates just take their information from the master lists. I hope that this clarifies my position. - Pernambuco 22:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...and will do! Been watching this long debate from the start, with a lot of gaps I might add. •NikoSilver• 20:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Hello Wissahickon Creek. I have to inform you that I've been monitoring your edits for some time now, and that I have found your behaviour to be frequently disruptive.

Some of your first edits, for example, involved a proposal to "reform" the requests for adminship process that was quickly shot down.[1] I'm not sure if you used a previous account, or are active on a non-English edition of Wikipedia, or are simply a longtime reader, but this sort of behaviour is concerning.

In addition, you have become increasingly disruptive on Template:Europe ([2] among others), to the point where you are focusing on it at the expense of any other editing.[3]

Your attempt at mediating a dispute on the Alexander the Great article was, to be blunt, a spectacular failure, but even after being told by multiple experienced users, including two MedCab coordinators, that you handled the case poorly and should not mediate further until you understood the process better, you have refused to drop the issue and admit your mistake.[4][5]

Tangentially, you posted a major copyright violation on Talk:Alexander the Great.[6]

In short, please reform your editing behaviour, or I will have no choice but to block you from editing. Thank you.--SB | T 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.C., I'd like to inform you that there is also now a discussion thread about you over at WP:ANI, where it has been suggested you are a sockpuppet. As you were certainly not a genuinely new user when you started here a week ago, could you please give a statement what your relation to any other or older accounts is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for recusal

I have asked that you recuse yourself from the mediation case at Talk:Alexander the Great. Please respect this request and good luck with future mediation. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Wissahickon Creek ^talk 09:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Heheh why can't I edit Wikipedia?--Wissahickon Creek ^talk 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wissahickon_Creek Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust Jayjg and his CheckUser capabilities. Wissahickon Creek ^talk 06:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence — I don't trust you. (By the way, if you're trying to keep up a facade of innocence, starting your objection with "heheh" isn't a great move.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust Admins from Wikipedia. They make mistakes. Some of them are using their capabilities to stop a certain attitude, e.g. the unrecognized states. Anyway what was wrong with my edits? Did my edits annoy them? --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the fact that this user doesn't trust an admin who he has had limited/no interaction with. User appears to also know what CheckUser is. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read about it, since I've seen on my page. Did you wanted not to be informed? Wissahickon Creek ^talk 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes — the entire pattern of this user's contributions show that he's not exactly a newbie. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a smart person, see my edits. I'm not a dull person like some admins..what do you expect?Wissahickon Creek ^talk

Let us get one thing straight. Do you expect "I'm smart" to be a valid defense against the fact that you're a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet? Get real. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest dude, User:Bonaparte was blocked in January and we are now in November..., show me the evidences please...--Wissahickon Creek ^talk 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a CheckUser. And I think I've spent enough time talking to you. Expect nothing further from me. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, however thanks for your input :) --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Unrecognized state for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Unrecognized state is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unrecognized state until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Privybst (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]