| Revision as of 04:13, 8 October 2011 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits ←Replaced content with '{{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 250K |counter = 1 |algo = old(7d) |archive = User talk:Hodja Nasreddin/Archive %(counter)d }} {{archives}} {{semi-...'← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:19, 8 October 2011 edit undoHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| {{semi-retired}} | {{semi-retired}} | ||
| == Holodomor == | |||
| Hi there, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the Holodomor mediation. I saw your on Vecrumba's talk page - if you feel strongly about the issues, might you consider adding yourself to the mediation? I think it would be better to air all the issues out on the mediation page, rather than "mediation by proxy", as it were. Thanks — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 02:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I do not feel strongly about the issues, and I did not edit this article for a long time. Whatever you decide in mediation would be fine for me. I commented to Vecrumba only because I know the subject. Do you think my involvement in mediation would be helpful? If so, I can leave a few comments there. ] (]) 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the reply. It's completely up to you if you participate or not. I think we have good representation of both "sides" in the mediation, and there are plenty of knowledgeable editors involved, so I don't see any problems in proceeding with the current list of editors. I think, in the interests of transparency, that if you want to comment on the content it should probably be done on the mediation page; I do realise, though, that if you don't want to get involved with the mediation itself then there is an obvious logical problem there. Speaking for myself, I would say that as long as the mediation process can continue smoothly, then a few talk page comments on the content are no problem whatsoever, but that if you want to comment in more detail then joining the mediation is probably a good idea. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 04:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would rather not comment there. I know all the users involved and do not think they can agree about anything. This mediation may serve only one purpose: as a step for a future arbitration. I am sure that at least one side has this goal in mind. They hope to "win" because another side was sanctioned before. Of course there is nothing wrong with going to arbitration, this is a legitimate procedure, but I would strongly advise all participants against doing this. P.S. If I talk with someone, it does not mean he is my "proxy".] (]) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, sorry, that was probably a bad choice of words. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything there. Even if some parties do see this as a stepping-stone to arbitration, myself and the other two mediators are clear that we do actually intend to resolve the problems on the page. Let's wait for all the participants to submit their statements and see how things go. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Good luck! I remember as ] wasted a lot of her time on a "forced mediation" between only ''two'' users and was unable to accomplish anything.] (]) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, not only these guys did not agree about anything, but they reported each other to AE during the mediation. How are you going to proceed if one of them was banned from the area for 6 months? Wait 6 months? ] (]) 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:19, 8 October 2011
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Holodomor
Hi there, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the Holodomor mediation. I saw your comment on Vecrumba's talk page - if you feel strongly about the issues, might you consider adding yourself to the mediation? I think it would be better to air all the issues out on the mediation page, rather than "mediation by proxy", as it were. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 02:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, I do not feel strongly about the issues, and I did not edit this article for a long time. Whatever you decide in mediation would be fine for me. I commented to Vecrumba only because I know the subject. Do you think my involvement in mediation would be helpful? If so, I can leave a few comments there. Biophys (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. It's completely up to you if you participate or not. I think we have good representation of both "sides" in the mediation, and there are plenty of knowledgeable editors involved, so I don't see any problems in proceeding with the current list of editors. I think, in the interests of transparency, that if you want to comment on the content it should probably be done on the mediation page; I do realise, though, that if you don't want to get involved with the mediation itself then there is an obvious logical problem there. Speaking for myself, I would say that as long as the mediation process can continue smoothly, then a few talk page comments on the content are no problem whatsoever, but that if you want to comment in more detail then joining the mediation is probably a good idea. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would rather not comment there. I know all the users involved and do not think they can agree about anything. This mediation may serve only one purpose: as a step for a future arbitration. I am sure that at least one side has this goal in mind. They hope to "win" because another side was sanctioned before. Of course there is nothing wrong with going to arbitration, this is a legitimate procedure, but I would strongly advise all participants against doing this. P.S. If I talk with someone, it does not mean he is my "proxy".Biophys (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, that was probably a bad choice of words. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything there. Even if some parties do see this as a stepping-stone to arbitration, myself and the other two mediators are clear that we do actually intend to resolve the problems on the page. Let's wait for all the participants to submit their statements and see how things go. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck! I remember as one of the most experienced administrators wasted a lot of her time on a "forced mediation" between only two users and was unable to accomplish anything.Biophys (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- So, not only these guys did not agree about anything, but they reported each other to AE during the mediation. How are you going to proceed if one of them was banned from the area for 6 months? Wait 6 months? Biophys (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck! I remember as one of the most experienced administrators wasted a lot of her time on a "forced mediation" between only two users and was unable to accomplish anything.Biophys (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, that was probably a bad choice of words. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything there. Even if some parties do see this as a stepping-stone to arbitration, myself and the other two mediators are clear that we do actually intend to resolve the problems on the page. Let's wait for all the participants to submit their statements and see how things go. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would rather not comment there. I know all the users involved and do not think they can agree about anything. This mediation may serve only one purpose: as a step for a future arbitration. I am sure that at least one side has this goal in mind. They hope to "win" because another side was sanctioned before. Of course there is nothing wrong with going to arbitration, this is a legitimate procedure, but I would strongly advise all participants against doing this. P.S. If I talk with someone, it does not mean he is my "proxy".Biophys (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. It's completely up to you if you participate or not. I think we have good representation of both "sides" in the mediation, and there are plenty of knowledgeable editors involved, so I don't see any problems in proceeding with the current list of editors. I think, in the interests of transparency, that if you want to comment on the content it should probably be done on the mediation page; I do realise, though, that if you don't want to get involved with the mediation itself then there is an obvious logical problem there. Speaking for myself, I would say that as long as the mediation process can continue smoothly, then a few talk page comments on the content are no problem whatsoever, but that if you want to comment in more detail then joining the mediation is probably a good idea. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)