| Revision as of 04:05, 19 November 2011 editGatoclass (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators104,154 edits →Whisperback: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:27, 19 November 2011 edit undoWGFinley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,088 edits →Nableezy AE caseNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| Quite frankly I am getting extremely tired of seeing admins in effect enabling disruptive users by rewarding them with blocks and bans of the opponents they set out to harass. There is no moral equivalence here. Users are entitled to edit pages responsibly without fear of sanction. ] (]) 04:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC) | Quite frankly I am getting extremely tired of seeing admins in effect enabling disruptive users by rewarding them with blocks and bans of the opponents they set out to harass. There is no moral equivalence here. Users are entitled to edit pages responsibly without fear of sanction. ] (]) 04:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :This is pretty simple, follow along. | |||
| :# Two for the show did the 4th revert which brought it back to the status quo it had been for 5+ months and asked for the warring to stop and to discuss building a consensus. | |||
| :# Nableezy appears to think that is ] and reverts = bad. | |||
| :# He does explain on the talk page.= good. But he had already reverted which makes his claim of seeking consensus appear less than genuine. He ignored the call for discussion and consensus in favor of restoring his own preferred version. | |||
| :This is the essence of P-I edit wars and as anyone who edits in P-I knows your actions are subject to sanction if you can't edit harmoniously. Nableezy has repeatedly been subject to sanction for ] in the P-I space, this is nothing new or invented on my part. --] (]) 04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:27, 19 November 2011
Feel free to use this page to reach me. If you are in need of more personal, private, or immediate assistance, feel free to email me. Thanks!.
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.
— Thomas Jefferson
Making WP:Mediation meaningful
Please consider how you might assist Feezo, who you will know is the mediator at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands.
As context, please scan "Hands off" mediation plan.
Mediation involves conflated issues, but wider community intervention is needed in order to help, support and encourage Feezo so that we may reach those issues. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm hesitant to wade into this at this time. MedCom is discussing this case per the request made, we should have something shortly. --WGFinley (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- This was not an invitation to "wade in" -- no.
My purpose was more subtle, more indirect. In posting this note on your talk page (and on the pages of your mediator colleagues), it was a good guess that your "back channel" comments might bolster Feezo's resolve, patience and flexibility.
Also, I thought it very likely that Bobthefish2 would closely follow my edits. If so, he would notice the sequence of diffs posted on mediator talk pages; and the cumulative effect of my carefully mild words might cause him pause.
My guess is that this gesture achieved no discernible goal. At best, these were a small things. These small "nudges" represented the extent of my ability to affect the momentum of things spinning out of control.
I adopt Feezo's argument that "mediation requires honesty, but also a willingness to engage." This small strategy demonstrates both honesty and willingness and an investment in speculating about the probable consequences of a few words. --Tenmei (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- The MedCom mailing list is no secret, it helps coordinate the assignment of cases, manage caseload and handle requests such as those made in this case. It's not something I would reply to individually at this point as it's under review. --WGFinley (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- This was not an invitation to "wade in" -- no.
Whisperback
Hello. You have a new message at The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous's talk page.
Nableezy AE case
I'm sorry, but I must strongly disagree with some of your comments in this case. Nableezy made one revert, of two for the show. He then came up with a compromise edit which eliminated, or should have eliminated, the source of friction, by simply substituting "Israeli occupied territories" in place of the disputed list of territories. That was a good solution in my view, and the dispute should have ended there, except that an IP (since blocked), clearly bent on harassment of Nableezy, then began reverting him.
Quite frankly I am getting extremely tired of seeing admins in effect enabling disruptive users by rewarding them with blocks and bans of the opponents they set out to harass. There is no moral equivalence here. Users are entitled to edit pages responsibly without fear of sanction. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is pretty simple, follow along.
- Two for the show did the 4th revert which brought it back to the status quo it had been for 5+ months and asked for the warring to stop and to discuss building a consensus.
- Nableezy appears to think that is The Wrong Version and reverts = bad.
- He does explain on the talk page.= good. But he had already reverted which makes his claim of seeking consensus appear less than genuine. He ignored the call for discussion and consensus in favor of restoring his own preferred version.
- This is the essence of P-I edit wars and as anyone who edits in P-I knows your actions are subject to sanction if you can't edit harmoniously. Nableezy has repeatedly been subject to sanction for tendentious editing in the P-I space, this is nothing new or invented on my part. --WGFinley (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)