User talk:Armedblowfish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to leave me a message. Disclaimers: Unsigned comments may have Template:Unsigned2 appended. Any edit containing personal information about me (real or made-up) will probably simply be removed.

Archives

• User talk:Armedblowfish/Archive1 (April 12, 2006 — June 9, 2006)
• User talk:Armedblowfish/Archive2 (June 12, 2006 — July 13, 2006)

[edit] MedCom

Hi, I see that you offered to mediate the case of the Ross Jeferies Talk page, has that lead to anything? It may be worth your while leaving messages on the talk pages of the involved parties to let them know that you are willing to mediate the case. If you need a hand just let me know. --Wisden17 14:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you interest in my attempts to mediate! : ) No, it hasn't lead to anything yet, but I just took your advice and posted reminders on the talk pages of the participants. I don't want them to feel rushed in deciding whether or not they would like me to mediate, however. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that point, but often people don't have the RfM page on their watchlist, or it gets buried on their watchlist, meaning that a quick message on their talk page is usually the best policy. Like I said if you need a hand at any stage let me know. --Wisden17 13:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am fine with you mediating. This is just my first time in mediation and the process is new to me. Thanks for offering. --SecondSight 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The result of my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to vote in my successful RfA. Despite your oppose vote, I was made an admin by a margin of 54/6/1.

You may be wondering why I am thanking you now, almost a month and a half after my becoming an administrator. There are many reasons, and I will attempt to explain these now. First of all, I am hand-typing all of my responses to all of my votes (which, admittedly, I underestimated the time such an undertaking would consume). I thought this would be rather simple, but needless to say, it is hard to think of unique and appropriate wording for each user. Secondly, the FIFA World Cup coincided with my promotion to administrator status, and so I was preoccupied with watching the World Cup. Third, I had some issues outside of Wikipedia that I had to deal with, and such issues decreased the amount of time I could spend responding to RfA votes. But those three reasons are merely excuses, and they should not be excused.

However, delaying my responses to votes has a postive effect for those who opposed my quest for adminship. It gives those users (such as yourself) the opportunity to review my actions as an administrator. If you so choose, you can review my administrator decisions here: IanManka (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). This is, of course, entirely optional.

Re-reading your oppose reasoning, I feel that my response to some of the questions were inappropriate and perhaps not representative of my views on Wikipedia. I agree with your view that, in a conflict, "be polite and respect to opinions of your opponents when in conflict, not to walk away, depriving Wikipedia of your opinion and reducing consensus. In my response, I was stating what I should have done when I was in a lame edit war with a possible troll. The edit war in question was about piping of a single link, and perhaps I mishandled the situation. Now knowing what it is like on the "admin side" of Wikipedia, I understand now that walking away "is impractical for a Admin."

You also said not to take offense to your comments. Please do not feel that I am criticizing you in this response, but am instead only trying to learn from my critics. I am making an attempt to accurately interpret what your oppose reasoning was, and then, using this information, attempt to improve as an administrator.

In conclusion, I apologize for the tardiness of this response, and if you ever find me inappropriately using my administrator tools, please let me know. Sorry for this lengthy chunk of text on your talk page. If you have any questions about this response, please let me know. Thanks, and have a nice day! Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checking in

Just checking in to make sure you're still with us; I noticed it's been over a week since your last contribution and just wanted to make sure you were still around. Drop me a note on my talk page when you're in next, if you don't mind. Essjay (Talk) 09:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Committee

It is my pleasure to announce that after great consideration, you have been accepted as a member of the Mediation Committee. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for Mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks page, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You may also (and are encouraged to) join the Committee's internal mailing list. (Please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it.) If you have any questions about how the committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations on becoming a member! For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just need to confirm your email; if you don't mind posting it publicly, could you leave me a note on my talk with "Yes, I am [address]." If not, email me directly and I'll give you a confirmation code to put somewhere. Essjay (Talk) 01:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Puffy OpenBSD mascot.png listed for deletion

[edit] improved convenience link at WP:RS

I've replied to you User_talk:Terryeo#Convenience_links here. Terryeo 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, That's a good one you did at R2-45 I think. Terryeo 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Smallville episodes

I ask you to reconsider your vote. I have found an interesting twist to this whole thing. There is a Centralized Discussion about TV episode formats, which is how policies are adjusted and created. If you look again at the debate I have linked to the appropriate articles. This is not about preference, as we both know preference is an opinion and opinions are something else on Wikipedia. The articles detail that there are multiple formats for TV pages, and that season pages is one of them. It is no longer a question of who is right and wrong, but of who was there first. Selecting a format over another based on what you prefer is hardly NPOV. The season have been there for months longer than the list page, and they are complete (granted they need work to the tone of the article, but they are more complete than the list page) and technically have seniority over the list. Voted for the list, toward the deletion of the season pages, is promoting preference in Wikipedia. I ask you to read the Centralized Discussion page and think about what this debate is really about, now that other guidelines have been found. Bignole

I wish you would see that Talk page for "list of episodes". Pere requested a vote to determine if the indy ep pages should be created (which I thought was clear on the other page), in the mean time he has gone ahead and created Season 2 pages and plans to go ahead with others, completely ignoring everyone. Bignole

I guess you're saying we need to finish all five season pages before moving to individual episode pages. To me, it's kind of a "if not now, when?" deal. I've already made the pages so it seems like the right time. I guess I'm prepared to make them as thorough (big) and as well referenced (thanks for the tips) as you would like. - Peregrinefisher 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gunston Hall

Well, I just don't see anything at all wrong with Gunston_Hall#References and the additions you made. An element of the situation which appears particularly impressive is that sites which you link, link themselves to national museums and the like. Terryeo 07:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Help

Hi sorry about taking a relatively long (in Wikipedia standards!) time to reply. I had a case where one party was taking a very long time to actually get down to mediation etc. and so I closed the case stating that the pary was not willing to partcipate, and eventually it went to arbitration. With your case I think that is clear that enough time has passed for it to be clear that the party will not be invovled. Technically the request should be re-filled and WoodenBuddha not listed as an involved party. However, I know that this case has been on file for a long time, and so I would presume the other parties would not be keen on extending the time before starting mediation further. I personally would say start the mediation, but let Essjay know what you are up to. He'll probably reply anyway to the message you left on the mailing list. Hope that helps. --Wisden17 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice guy article

Howcome it is on your userpage? What happened to the orginal, what can be done to put what you have back on wikipedia? Mathmo 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation committee

As a current mediator who has also been active in the last few days, can I point you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requests for mediation has ground to a halt, where concerns have been registered as to the current seemingly static state of the committee. Steve block Talk 19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost mediation

Thanks for the kind words, and for not throwing the book at me. :) If you have any concerns or suggestions about the way I'm handling it, please let me know, either privately or publicly. Thatcher131 11:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict at User talk:Terryeo

My apologies for that. I know that the software does sometimes fail to detect an edit conflict, but I'm not sure if it was that or if I went back to a revision before Terryeo jumbled my words around and forgot to go back to the most recent version to edit.

Terryeo is incredibly frustrating to deal with, and I have no doubt that it must seem like those of use who are pressing for him to be dealt with strongly are overreacting. But as I said before, our systems are pretty much predicated on the assumption that we will not have to deal with any truly bad actors -- only with situations where people of good faith mistake each other for bad actors. I tried for a very, very long time to assume good faith of Terryeo -- when he violated a policy, I said "well, maybe he doesn't know about that policy." When he radically misinterpreted a policy and started haranguing editors for not abiding by his imagined interpretation of the policy, I said "well, maybe he hasn't worked out that the examples given on that very page contradict the interpretation he's offering of that policy." When he made further reference to editors supposedly violating policy by not editing according to his own misunderstanding of that policy, I gritted my teeth and said "well, maybe he just forgot that we already established that the policy had never said what he claimed it said verbatim or meant what he claimed to think it meant."

But there's a reason that the legal system works on a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any possible doubt." It might be possible to believe that individual acts by Terryeo have some innocent explanation -- that he really did think he read somewhere that ChrisO was a declared suppressive person; that he really did think he read somewhere that I had been "barred for a month". It might even be possible to forgive acts which could not be accidents, such as the edits he made over a series of three and a half weeks in violation of his ArbCom ban, if such bad behavior could be seen as the exception to a general pattern of good behavior. But frankly, I think the answer is much simpler and that the total evidence of Terryeo's behavior points to it beyond a reasonable doubt: he is here to disrupt. That's it. Even getting the Scientology articles to reflect a Scientology POV is not his long-term goal -- though it's a nice side bonus to him if that happens, inevitably that POV imbalance is going to get corrected. But demoralizing Wikipedia editors, making them put up with so much personally aimed bullshit that they'll inevitably start to blame Wikipedia for letting the bullshit go on and leave -- that is something he can take as a lasting and long-term goal. And I think it's exactly the goal he came to Wikipedia to pursue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation on F-14

I don't know if you've noticed, but quite a few things have occurred since the RfM. The case was accepted by CQJ, on the MedcabalWikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05_F-14_Tomcat, which ended in deadlock, shortly followed by an RfC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu. Wiarthurhu was banned for actions unrelated in content but related in conduct (you can see on his talk page). The ban was subsequently lifted under some stringent conditionsWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive57#Banned_User:Wiarthurhu_asking_for_lifting_of_his_community_ban, including the avoidance of all users involved in previous disputes, as well as the aviation and automotive content involved. CQJ volunteered to be a mentor, I think it would be best to run this mediation case by him. I will participate in mediation if requested, but I think given the state of things, it's best to let things lie for a while. --Mmx1

I have recieved your comment, however, I just got in from work. You may rely on me to respond completely in the morning. Thanks for your work. CQJ 07:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Mmx's view. I don't think that re-opening these sores this early in the mentorship period would lend well to what we're trying to accomplish here. That being said, the only real issue at the article page that was not resolved was if maneuverability was a design concern, and that probably needs to be sorted out by consensus and source material from WikiProject Aircraft due to the nature of what's being discussed there. Thanks. CQJ 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you are taking the mentorship of User:Wiarthurhu from User:CQJ (who is on Wikibreak) - well, I didn't notice that until after I filed a MedCab case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-31 User:Wiarthurhu mediation violation - I would greatly appreciate someone taking note of this situation. Just take a look at Chevrolet Pickup 1955-57 - note who uploaded the two obviously inappropriate photos. Note clause (3) of Wiarthurhu's terms and conditions. Thanks! SteveBaker 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If I took over Wiarthurhu's mentorship, that is news to me. I did volunteer to mediate an outdated dispute between Wiarthurhu and some others (MedCom is behind on cases), but the case was... outdated. This is not to say I wouldn't be willing to mentor Wiarthurhu while CQJ is on wikibreak, or comentor with CQJ, assuming that would be okay with Wiarthurhu and CQJ, but at present time I am not Wiarthurhu's mentor. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 07:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC), 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - sorry - I misunderstood. SteveBaker 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Help

Thanks for your help on the 9/11 Association of All Sides Editors. If you see any other changes that should be made, please go ahead and make them. I honestly do want to get this thing into something that everyone can live with. Shortfuse 09:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darfur conflict talk

I've started a thread at Talk:Darfur conflict#Reports of slavery relevant to your latest additions to that article. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Notice on Article Page

Since that seems to mirror the notice on the talk page, works for me. Thanks. *Sparkhead 00:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature Length

Your signature is over 160 characters in HTML, and over 30 when displayed. People can find your talk and email with a simple link to your page. Please review WP:SIGNATURE#Length and shorten them. Thanks. *Sparkhead 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Moved comment back here, removed from my talk page)

Is it the HTML length or the display length that is bothering you? I just added spaces to the code so it would break up better in the edit box, but that might not fully address your concern. The links to my talk page and email are mainly there because of my involvement in mediation, but I could shorten it to Armedblowfish (t|m|c). That might be slighlty confusing for new users (for whom the links are more useful), and to the rare English-as-a-second-language person or someone using an online translator such as Altavista, but then again "contribs" doesn't translate already. So was it mostly the horizontal length in the edit box you were concerned about, or would abbreviating the talk|mail|contribs part make you happier? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Both. There's no reason for even (t|m|c), if someone wants to find you they can through your page. Also, please respect the notice at the top of my talk page. Thanks. *Sparkhead 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the notice on top of your page until just now - I am very sorry for the confusion that resulted. Anyways, like I said the talk and mail parts are most useful for new users, who might not know about the features. But come to think about it, the "contribs" part is less likely to be useful. Do you find my new signature more satisfactory? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience links

[1] I was and am involved in an extensive dispute regarding this subject on Sathya Sai Baba which even reached the arbcom. Andries 08:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Request Pat Lee

I don't know if I'm doing this right, but there is an editing back and forth going on in the article about comic artist Pat Lee.

Now, it's not my edit, I'm restoring a previous edit that briefly, and I feel, nuetrally, point out the well documented issues surrounding this artist, inclduing non payment of freelancers in his company (for which he has been sued, a matter of record) and not drawing his own pages (which again has been reported on reputable comic websites).

Part of the problem here is I think is that Pat Lee (rightfully so) has fans that don't liek to see "ugly" facts about him. I can understand that.

However, these contreversies are well documented (in periodicals such as the Comics Journal, the only real legitimate comics news publication) and are part of what makes this person "notable".

I hate to waste my time going through a editing war.

I'm doing this anonymously because I thik this is a sensitive issue and I do not want to be dogged by overenthusiastic Lee fans.

Thanks!

lol, i know youre referring to me, but its not like im gonna raid/assault your house with apache helicopters =D anyways. i just want to clarify that im not one of those overenthusiastic Lee fans ;) †Bloodpack† 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We've got some vandalism now going on which I suspect has something to do with the critical additions to the article. Can we protect the page? --Ughmonster 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple bad edits don't generally warrant page protection. I'd reccomend leaving a message on Clash328's talk page, explaining why edits like this are a bad idea. It is probably more polite to avoid the word "vandalism"... instead, try "nonsense" or "unverified negative material in a biography of a living person". Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP/AN

Thank you, Armed, for your offer. I am afraid it will not accomplish much. He has been quiescent for a few days; perhaps when he returns I may take you up on it. Thanks again! -- Avi 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shining Path mediation

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shining Path, believe me, it's not a moot issue. Just two days ago a party to the mediation changed the article, and another party to it reverted[2]. --Descendall 15:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll remember that. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. Please either accept or reject me as a mediator there, and if you accept, please let me know if you would prefer public or private mediation. Also, assuming you are still interested in mediation, please watchlist the page if you haven't already. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I just accepted. I especially like the fact that you are a programmer, and hopefully will use LOGIC and not feelings (which seems to drive my "opponents" in this mediation). I am prepared to accept your decision.--AAAAA 02:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN:Re.: Martial Law

I've been having some problems with my ISP and/or my terminal from time to time. This may explain the "malformed" links. I'm on the Hughes Satellite system. I once had a link I personally checked on WP go bad on WP. Am I having a software problem or a hardware problem ? These malfunctions have kept me off of the 'net and WP. Sometimes when I edit WP, I have had these tags appear: "Dataloss has happened", "This document contains no data.", "Operation has Timed out." Martial Law 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a Talk Page probation, and how do I, anyone else comply with this ? Martial Law 08:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you think your ISP is causing error in your edits... i.e. the edit you make is different than the edit that WP shows? Could you provide an example? The malfunctions you described are definitely network problems... basically, the Wikipedia servers send you information in small packets, but sometimes they get lost and don't make it to you.

I'm pretty sure that what the admins were concerned about was the quality of links you add to Wikipedia, though. Basically, Wikipedia generally wants to provide a short list of high-quality (non-copyvio, more or less reliable, useful, etc.) (Also see WP:EL.) I will, of course, try to be more specific as I get to know you better.

As for Talk Page probation, on that I am going to have to get to know you better. The goal will be to figure out what you were doing that was bothering people, and then try to avoid it. For now, consider asking questions on my talk page, or on the talk page of some other person willing to help you, rather than on article talk pages.

I know my reply was rather non-specific, but I have not had time to study your situation in detail yet, sorry.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 11:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re.WP:EL

From what I have seen about WP:EL, these are to assist the reader in the search for more info. referenced in a article. Can you please enlighten me if I'm incorrect ? I have noticed on the WP:RS page that there is a debate of some kind going on. Will that affect me, others ? Martial Law 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shining Path

Even though mediation just started, I wanted to thank you for sticking with us on this case. The Peruvian Marxist left is a very arcane subject to most, and discussing the difference between El Partido Comunista del Peru and El Partido Comunista Peruano must be boring for you. All of us really owe you a debt of gratitude. --Descendall 04:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't boring, because of the people, but thank you. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

(to AAAA): Assuming you are still interested in mediation, would you mind giving us your input at the mediation the whenever you are around? This will help us reach a consensus that you will be content with. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am super sorry. I am so busy in my "real" life that I haven't had time to go to Wikipedia. Please give me a few more days.--AAAAA 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pravnight

I'm curious about your reasoning - why does the "less than 500 edits" influence you to oppose a measure which merely requires Pravnight to edit the Talk page only, and behave civilly? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It means Pravnight is a newbie. I don't expect newbies to have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies/guidelines, or the best way to handle a dispute. Mentorship might be a good idea. I would almost volunteer to mentor Pravnight for a few months, except I am aprhensive about taking on an involuntary mentorship. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

His newbie status really is not relevant -- he knows and apprehends our guidelines and policies, but just as a sociopath cares nothing for society's laws, PK cares nothing for our "rules".

I'm not sure I understand your intent here: "And Jim - would it help if I said I am neither Christian nor liberal?" •Jim62sch• 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of that. This essentially started out as a POV dispute, and those often get hot... trying to learn about the Wikipedia way of doing things while in the middle of one probably doesn't work very well. Also, I thought I said neither Christian nor conservative, but apparently I didn't. What I meant was that the community might be more comfortable if I didn't share Pravnight's religious or political opinions, although I'm not sure where I got the impression that the community might be concerned.

In any case, I don't look at RfC much, but one dissenting vote won't stop the motion, will it?

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Armedblowfish :-). To clarify a bit more... No, one vote does not stop the motion as such. But this is about clarifying the situation for interested parties and making sure that a full range of options are considered. I replied to you because I wanted it to be clear that your approach has already been tried informally and went no where. Prav originally was receptive to my comments and help. Likely this was because I tolerated a bit of his "outside of policy" behavior because he was a newbie. When I felt that he was simply ignoring policy I could no longer ignore his personal attacks and his other disruptive actions. Based on this I hope that you can see why I think that your approach is not satisfactory. IMO, we can not have an editor be allowed to harass a large number of editors and admins that have tried their best to settle the the dispute with him through the proper processes. I think this motion was a good step toward curbing his disruptive behavior and allowing him to continue to edit. This does not have to be a permanent remedy. I will be very willing to reconsider the situation if and when he changes his behavior. Okay, enough said. Hope this helps you see why I commented the way I did to your oppose. Take care and have a good day editng, FloNight 12:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! : ) I am glad one dissenting vote doesn't stop the motion ... if it did, I'd have to retract it just to let community consensus go through. I see where you are coming from, but I don't believe Pravnight knows how to edit nicely... yet. Imposing these sanctions before he/she knows how to follow them seems to be inviting failure. You have a nice day too, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of this type of remedy is to stop disruption to the project. This is our main way to measure success, right. I do not think it will be a failure in this regard. Secondary concerns are about tailoring a remedy that will encourage an user to continue to edit the project in a collaborative manner so we have the benefit of his volunteer effort. I think this remedy does so. It is similar to remedies given out by arb com. Recently, the community is making these recommendations and remedies instead of Arb com to find quicker resolution to problems. Overall it seems to be working and I think it can work in this case. FloNight 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next

U asked about the discussion about WP:EL and WP:RS. Can we continue the discussion ? By the way, how am I doing ? I have a feeling that I'm a model to be followed ? Hope so. Can I suggest that these discussions be linked to my toolbox for future reference ? Martial Law 17:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason I asked is that our Archive devices will bury it at some point. I'm just looking for a way to access it instantly. Martial Law 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zdaemon wiki page Mediation Please

Dear Armedblowfish. After much frustration and unnecessary reparte, it came to my attention that the proper way to deal with a dispute is to request arbitration.

My username is TCDOOM

and this is the wiki article that I am asking for your mediation with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZDaemon#Clan_activity

I am very frustrated and rather than continuing to engage with the party with which I have grown frustrated with, I am asking for your intervention.

I thank you in advance.

The main issue is in relation to "Clan Activity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZDaemon#Clan_activity and relevancy of Clans as they relate to the Zdaemon.org community and the like. I feel my posts and rebuttals are sufficient to provide relevancy. While I confess I may have gone overboard and made some of my posts personal in nature, I had done so before finding the option of arbitration. I ask that your arbitration be relative to the content matter in question, and not my reparte with a certain user Bjweeks. In the future you can expect that I will more strictly abide by the rules and regulations as they relate to wikipedia and interactions with users.

Sincerely,

--76.16.70.153 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Armedblowfish, thank you for your prompt attention.

As per dictionary.com:

ar·bi·tra·tion (ärb-trshn) Pronunciation Key

n. The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.

me‧di‧a‧tion  1. action in mediating between parties, as to effect an agreement or reconciliation.

—Synonyms 1. Mediation, arbitration designate processes for bringing about agreement or reconciliation between opponents in a dispute. Mediation implies deliberation that results in solutions that may or may not be accepted by the contending parties. Arbitration involves a more formal deliberation, it being understood that the results will be binding on the contending parties.

Semantics aside, I would appreciate your help in dealing with this certain matter, however that may be. 76.16.70.153 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong

Thanks for the message. Yes, I believe mediation will be terrifically helpful in this case. The articles have been protected again for quite a while. Whenever they are unprotected, eventually pro- and anti- editors go at it hammer and tongs, so a disinterested voice with an eye to encyclopaedic priorities should help remind people why we're here. The case page is on my watchlist, please let me know if there is anything that I can or shouldn't do to help. --Fire Star 火星 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fire Star. Mediation is needed as much as ever. I wish you success with this highly demanding and controversial subject. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the help. Mediation is indeed much needed. --Yenchin 13:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi thank you for agreeing to mediate Falun Gong pages, many editors have voiced their opinion on this page here. We are all waiting to hear from you. --Samuel Luo 19:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to do this. Your help is definitely needed to keep us on track. I just did a posting on the main page discussion, because I think editors may have missed you message above.--Tomananda 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Forgot to mention that public mediation is fine with me. --Tomananda 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe mediation would be very helpful and I thank you for offering help. Dilip rajeev 06:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I know mediation in this subject will be quite a handful as it involves reading a LOT of arguments, but if you have any proposal for resolution, I'm sure everyone will be eager to listen (or read)! Jsw663 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we can have a good, neutral article if we can ensure that all edits conform to wikipedia rules regarding Reliable Sources and Original Research. Perhaps we could have something like this .. before any edit or revert is made, the editor has to outline his reasons and show that his edits conform to the guidelines presented in WP:OR and WP:Reliable Sources. Any edit done without outlining the reasons as said above is immediately reverted by the moderator.

I also feel that if all editors could go through the teachings first hand, it would contribute A LOT to working towards a good, neutral and factual article. The central teachings are the Nine Lecture Videos here. I apologize for repeating what I have said elsewhere but I consider this to be critical because I believe, from my own experience, that it is the only way one could truly understand what Falun Dafa is.

Dilip rajeev 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop preaching! The editors who are critical of the FG have most certainly read Li Hongzhi's bible, Zhuan Falun, as well as his subseqeunt speeches, poems, etc. The problem is that you seek to conceal an honest reporting of what those teachings are. Instead of working towards succinct summaries of the teachings, your tendency is to simply copy and paste multiple paragraphs of Li Hongzhi and call that an encylopedia article. --Tomananda 19:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you have read/listened to the relevant material, but Dilip is free to make any suggestions he or she wants. No need to call suggestions preaching. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding intolerant of input. The comment stems from a very long discussion way back in which Dilip and others took the stand that we could only draw on material in the Zhuan Falun (which is 10 years old) for describing the Falun Gong teachings. The rationale behind their argument is that one doesn't need to read all the other stuff in order to be a good person, since the Zhuan Falun is the main text..it's the Falun Gong bible. However, in order to have an understanding of what Master Li says practitoiners must do now in order to reach salvation, one must go to the more recent texts. So what I should have said is: Stop trying to limit the sources to the Zhuan Falun.--Tomananda 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I have never said anything of that sort. If I have, please provide the link to the talk page section. I have only requested that ALL teachings be covered with proper context.

Dilip rajeev 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, that's not true. You've done many postings in discussion encouraging non FG editors to "listen to the lectures," suggesting that if they do so they can find their "true self." You have also written to me directly asking that I study the Dafa and give up my homosexual behavior in order to be saved. By way of example, here's just one of your posts from a prior disussion page:

"People when they listen to the lectures and spend time with practitioner know Falun Dafa is not something ordinary.... and the faith practitioners have in Falun Dafa is solid like a diamond and unshakable as it comes from cultivation practice, rational understanding, and innumerable objective experiences..

Some with a lot of karma feel terrified when they hear zhen-shan-ren ... why is it so? Think about it if a person wants to coverup and support the killing of innocents what is he carrying within himself? and what about a person who supports the killing of those who cultivate zhen-shan-ren? What kind of person is he?

We must look inwards with sincereity and understand what we have become and what our true self is.." --Tomananda 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is something called "honour". I would also like to you point out the context in which I wrote the above and what it was a reply to. By mail I replied to what you were saying. It was you who brought up the topic of "homosexuality" and I merely mentioned my views on that. I never asked you to "give up" nor did I talk about "saving". Lets please try to stick to the article edits in discussion. One moment you accuse that practitioners "cover up" teachings the next you accuse practitioners of asking people to go through the teachings. And where have I said by going through the lectures one can "find your one's self"?!! That is absurd! Please dont attribute your words to me... I have never used the phrase anywhere! Dont resort to personal attacks. Your repeated attempts to portray people like what they are not - merely to achieve your motives, is not an act of honour.

All I have said is that only by going through the teachings first-hand can one form a good understanding. It is more so when there are people spending hours pouring out their POVs on the talk page. How could one form an understanding reading the opinions of others? Falun Dafa, in my opinion, is a higher science and it, I hold, can only be comprehended through an objective and scientific study. Further, it is possible to verify it through experimentation ( which includes practice).

Dilip rajeev 05:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: You say you never asked me to "give up" my homosexual behavior, yet here is a quote from an e-mail you sent me on March 22, 2006:

"I request you to please refrain from what you are doing... for the sake of your own being... Study the gnostic teachings in-depth which can be found in the lectures from www.gnosis-usa.com .. and then decide wether you shoud be doing this... or ideally just try the falun dafa exercises for a week or two and study the book Zhuan Falun.. and then decide..Please, do not bring such karma upon yourself.... The teachings of falun dafa are not made up stuff..."

I sent it to you when you had started writing made up slander into the wiki pages. By "refrain from" I meant refrain from spreading false slander on Falun Gong and I think you are fully aware of that! I dont understand why you distort the context and meaning, which you are fully aware of! It seems like you will stop at nothing to achieve your ends! I absolutely dont care about what you "give up" or dont!! I merely wished to share with you my understanding and experience and to help you understand what Falun Gong is and I did so in sincerity. In my understanding to go around attacking people who cultivate goodness is not an act that brings good returns.

Dilip rajeev 13:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: The proof of your meaning is clear in the quote above. You state: "Study the gnostic teachings in-depth which can be found in the lectures from www.gnosis-usa.com .. and then decide wether you shoud be doing this..." The reason you referred me to the gnostic writings is that you wanted me to realize that even though the Jesus depicted in the Bible never talked about the "sinfulness" of homosexuality, you had found a passage in the gnostic scriptures which does condemn homosexuality. In the quote, you ask me to read the gnostic bible and "then decide whether you should be doing this." Doing what? Clearly having gay sex, as that's the only possible interpretation for your statement. BTW, I was raised as a Christian and the homophobic passages you've managed to locate in the gnostic scriptures were written more than 200 years after the death of Jesus. Their legitimacy as an historical source of what Jesus actually said is highly doubtful.--Tomananda 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are arguing that I was mistaken because you used the words "refrain from" rather than "give up," then I think you should consult a dictionary. For all practical purposes, they mean the same thing. And for the record, you sent me an unsolicited e-mail on March 16, 2006 which said: "Friend: I came across this e-mail id on a webpage..There is something of great importance that I wanted to share with you."

As I said before, that was after you had started writing slander into the wiki pages. I merely wanted to let you know the truth about Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev 13:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You claim you have never used the phrase to "find their true self" in the context of promoting the Falun Gong. Well, here is the last sentence of a post you did on 4 August 2006:

"We must look inwards with sincereity and understand what we have become and what our true self is.." [3]

If you are arguing that there is a big difference between the construction "find their true self" and "look inwards with sincerity and understand what we have become and what our true self is.." then I would say to you, please stop using semantics to conceal meaning. This is a common practice among FG practitioners and it is extremely tiresome to deal with. One example is that even when a critic points out that Li's goal is to destroy the CCP withouth using the term "political", a practitoner will come back with the false argument that Li "is not political." I have been told by family members of practitioners that these kind of evasive strategies are often discussed in group settings. You guys are so concerned about your public image that you actually devote time to develop and fine-tune your obfuscations. WOW!

Yes, the meaning is different. But as Goethe says "People hear only what they understand." You say I wake up every morning and practice meditation to destroy the CCP? I give up jealousy, hatred, anger and all bad attachments to destroy the CCP? There are thousands dying in China - do you realize that? The persecution against innocents is what practitioners what to stop - nobody cares about politics! And I think you know all this and I find it really hard to understand what your motives are.

Dilip rajeev 13:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You prove my point! When I say "the goal of the FG is not just to stop the persecution of practitioners in China, but to destroy the Chinese Communist Party" you ignore that point and say you don't care about "politics." Rather than acknowlegding the truth of my statement, you engage in spinning, responding to something I didn't say as a diversionary tactic to the truth. FG practitioners are masters of this spinning game, but here, in Wikipedia, we have a higher standard of truth. --Tomananda 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, if you are going to make accusations that other editors are mis-quoting you, you ought to at least go back and read the pieces that are being cited before making such accusations. I take no pleasure in demonstrating that your memory has not served you well on these matters, but feel I must defend the accuracy of what I post on this board. --Tomananda 06:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page or the Falun Gong talk page, not on someone else's talk page. We must restrict discussion to the article and the edits if we are to progress.

Dilip rajeev 13:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in continuing this discussion. --Tomananda 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Are you going to be intervening soon on this discussion? We are repeating old arguments here and bouncing around from one section to another without an organized plan. We had an unofficial mediatior (Covenant) some time ago and one of the things he (and us collectively) did accomplish was to agree to to list of tasks to complete. It's a long list, and it appears at the top of the discussion page. --Tomananda 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked some more questions on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Shining Path. Do you think I should intervene on Talk:Falun Gong? Normally formal mediation is carried out on the mediation page or privately, but exceptions can be made if it is constructive towards the goal of working towards consensus. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best if you used the mediation page, but at the same time did a posting on the Talk Page to sort of lay down some ground rules and how you operate. A starting point would be to get everyone to work on the same edit at the same time, rather than jumping around. Covenant created a "To Do" list which appears at the top of the current Talk Page which you should be aware of. And of course all your questions need to be answered...I assume you mean you posted them on the Falun Gong talk page. I'll check that right now. --Tomananda 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice!  : ) I'll do that as soon as I figure out what to say, which will probably take about a day. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Kindly allow me to add something more to my suggestion above. Some editors, intentionaly or unintentionally, often take the discussion along a tangential path or make the situation appear far more complicated than it is. In my opinion, the situation is not complicated at all. Especially for pages like "supression of Falun Gong", ALL we need to do here is make sure the edits conform to WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Origial Research - absolutely nothing more is required.

To avoid off-track discussions,would it be helpful to have a section in which only material directly related to the edits are discussed? In this section, say, the user could outline the edit he has made, and demonstrate the material conforms to WP:OR and Rel Srcs.

Dilip rajeev 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Support mediation. I appreciate that you would invest time into getting to understand something like this and helping make a good reporting of it in wikipedia, and as it is not at all something simple, I wish you luck. And wisdom. --Asdfg12345 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for taking time and agreeing on mediation. Yes, I am still around. I am sorry I was less online. Thanks for your patience. Fnhddzs 03:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I also think it's quite essential to listen to the lectures as linked above, and read some independent sources about the persecution. I think that at least those two things are pretty much necessary to understand this subject. It may be a bit difficult to provide meaningful mediation without that kind of basic knowledge.--Asdfg12345 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course you would want everyone to listen to the lectures over and over again (as Li instructs) because it is that kind of repetition and isolation from alternative POV's (Li tells his practitioners to throw away all their non-FG books)which indoctrinates the practitioner. As long as your thinking about the Dafa remains a closed system of logic (untouched by common sense, reason, or even the need for internal consistency) Li maintains control over you. Right now he commands you to devote your efforts to the destruction of the CCP. This goal of destroying the CCP is so absolute, that FG practitioners are willing to abandon their declared commitment to the truth by fabricating stories about imaginary organ harvesting of live donors in places like Sujian. Even respected human rights advocates such as Harry Wu have exposed some of the lies FG tells about these things. [4],[5] The irony is that in the closed system of logic which is the Dafa, truth itself is contingent on the outcomes desired by Li Hongzhi. So rather than being the great cosmic law that Li says it is, Dafa is nothing more than a means to an end...the destruction of the CCP. Heaven help us if Li should decide on some other destructive goal for his "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" some day. --Tomananda 20:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said over and over again. I am just saying some basic knowledge is a good idea, I don't see what's wrong with that. Let's not use this page for this. If he doesn't even know what Falun Gong is teaching, how can he mediate it properly? It's just some basic things like anything else... sheesh.--Asdfg12345 11:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International Fact Sheet on ongoing Falun Gong Persecution in China (November 2006)

Mata and Kilgour Report on organ Harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in china ( http://investigation.go.saveinter.net/ )

Related Media Coverage ( http://investigation.go.saveinter.net/media%20coverage.htm )

Due to constant bantering of some individuals none of these have been adequately covered in the article. All well sourced information are repeatedly deleted and replaced by propaganda from the CCP by some who label themselves "critics". I request the moderator to kindly look into the matter and take appropriate action. 202.83.32.157 06:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that even when a Falun Gong claim is widely discredited, as was done in the case of alleged organ harvesting at Sujiatun, the critics are dismissed as agents of the evil CCP. The United States Government[6]

and anti-Chinese Communist Party activist Harry Wu are among those who have discredited the Sujiatun story. How can you possibly dismiss those critics as agents of the CCP? Sadly, there are human rights abuses in China, including of the Falun Gong, but the Falun Gong does not help the situation by fabricating stories of abuse for consumption by the Western media. As editors for this Wikipedia article, we should report the known facts and published opinions about the Falun Gong. Our editing should be guided by a healthy dose of skepticism for extreme statements on both sides of the Falun Gong controversy. We cannot allow this article to become an advertisement for the Falun Gong and it’s campaign to destroy the CCP. --Tomananda 20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again we observe editors who are reluctant to register and/or admit who they are (what do they have to hide?) simply dismissing any critic of Falun Gong as part of the Chinese Communist Party - a clearly inaccurate charge made on no basis whatsoever, and may even constitute as libel (although I'm aware that Wikipedia does not approve of legal threats, I'm merely saying such an accusation without any justification or basis whatsoever on a consistent basis throughout Wikipedia is worrying). In fact, it has been quite clearly shown that many of the Falun Gong critics are also CCP critics (read the Falun Gong discussion page). Personally, I am concerned at the inherent FLG bias and the FLG practitioners who deem it objective to filter out any non-FLG source before posting, and trying to dismiss any critic or skeptic as either a non-practitioner or a CCP-member. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as we have witnessed in the US and other places, it is important that we present ALL viewpoints proportionally before letting the viewers decide, rather than filtering out information to determine what the viewers ought to decide on.

Wikipedia has always been a bastion against censorship, and quite frankly, it is worrying that these Falun Gong practitioners think they are on the moral high ground by accusing of propaganda when they are engaging in just those very activities themselves. Jsw663 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

PS is the unregistered user 202.83.32.157, from southern India, Dilip rajeev? Just wondering if the user intentionally did not sign in when making his/her edit above. Jsw663 10:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, was that your post? While you may think that our "bantering" has delayed the pro-FG editors from developing some of their material, most of the "bantering" has resulted from FG practitioners objecting to content in the Criticism and controversies page. You yourself have provoked yet more discussion about the Homosexuality section, even though it was pretty much agreed to by editors several months ago. At some point I hope you can accept that there will be edits you don't agree with. You always can add material to present the opposing POV, providing it is sourced and does not represent original research, and that's what was expected to happen for the Homosexuality edit. I am hoping the mediator will be able to establish some kind of order and discipline in our discussions. I still think we should return to the original "to do" list created by Covenant and work through it, point by point. --Tomananda 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for Armedblowfish: I just noticed that the main page was unfrozen. In the past when that's happened it has provoked a flurry of edits, which we of course want to avoid by having you as a mediator. My question is: will you be able to intervene soon, and help to impose some structure on what we do and when (ie: a kind of work schedule) so that we won't get any more chaotic than we need to be? Please? --Tomananda 07:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate question

Hiya, I'm looking for someone with some mediator experience, to help with a dispute on a naming conventions issue. Some of it is related to the Stargate articles, which I see you're involved with. So, my guess is that it wouldn't be proper for you to be a formal mediator, but you might be perfect as an informal mediator. Would you be interested in helping? :) --Elonka 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM question

Hi, Armedblowfish. I've recently submitted an RfM at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Most of the participants in the debate have already agreed to mediation, but some participants (who haven't agreed yet) have edited the RfM page objecting to some of the phrasing, and other participants have reverted them. Have we already blown our chances of mediation? If not, what can we do to salvage the situation? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teachings of Falun Gong page, slightly urgent

Hello, This problem is ongoing and I hope it can be resolved. You may look at the history and compare the edits. There are two sections which have been the source of continued contention. They are called "Depravity of today's people" and "sickness karma", I suggest you read them, as well as the sections called "The Universes's deviation from the Fa" and "Suffering, sickness and cultivation practice". You may notice that more or less, the same content is covered in those respective sections. I don't know if I need to say too much more, if you look at my comments on the discussion page you can see my explanation. I don't know when disagreement in editing becomes vandalism. I consider the repeated inclusion of that content something that is directly degrading to wikipedia. I don't want to use words like "garbage" to describe it, because that would not help the process, so I will only say that it belongs on a personal website and not wikipedia: original research, very strong point of view, illegitimate source (Samuel's website), plus the whole tone is completely against what we are trying to do on wikipedia... etc., I think anyone taking a look at those sections will realise what is wrong with them. I have proposed that the responsibility to clean it up is with those who are proposing it. I would like to see what you have to say about this, what you think, and who you can encourage to take some positive action. If it seems that I am being unreasonable I would like to know. Note, this has lead to the page being locked several times, as Samuel has shown that he does not have much interest in cooperating. You can see his comments on the discussion page which declare that. --Asdfg12345 15:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)