User talk:Bstone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Your edits to Rainbow Gathering 2 request for mediation 3 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 4 Request for Arbitration 5 your question concerning arbitration 6 Clarification of the rejection of the Rainbow Gathering case 7 Your edits to Emergency medical technician

[edit] Your edits to Rainbow Gathering

Hi there. I wondered if you might be willing to participate in the mediation currently ongoing on the Rainbow Gathering talk page. We are currently trying to reach a consensus about what gatherings should be listed in the article. A lot of people feel strongly about this, but I feel confident that talking it through is the best route. In the mean time, would you consider temporarily stopping your continuous edits to the list until we come to a solution? Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for mediation

Greetings, I've just requested formal mediation over the dispute with lookingheart. Step 2 in wikipedia's despute resolution process. As you are a part of this dispute I added your name and am instructed to inform you of this request. Let's see what happens next. Oceankat 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/rainbow gathering, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Thanks for your rapid response. I'm sure you're really busy and don't have time to read all the rules concerning this mediation. I had to since I'm initiating it. At any rate they would like your agreement to be under the heading "Parties' agreement to mediate" and it seems as though in this process they can be very strict about the rules. Maybe when you get a chance you could move your agreement to that section? Oceankat 02:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

You accidentally placed something in my spot. [1] -- ADNghiem501 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

terribly sorry! my fault entirely. Bstone 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

Greetings, as I said I have moved forward with a request for arbitration of the desputes over the additions of gatherings by lookingheart. You can view the request at the link and add your thoughts useing the link below. Oceankat 18:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

[edit] your question concerning arbitration

Just saw your note, sorry it took so long, Bstone. I've been pretty busy and figuring out these requests are quite a chore for me. Thanks for waiting for me to get to it. I wouldn't have been upset if you had gone ahead yourself but thanks for waiting. Oceankat 19:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What next? For me nothing. I've wasted enough time on this only to be back at square one. Its not personal for me. Its was only about the wiki article. If there are no means to get adjudication through wiki process I'm inclined to drop it and let the article become whatever nonsense it becomes. If you decide to take it forward I would likely speak in your support by that would be all the time I care to invest in this. Oceankat 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of the rejection of the Rainbow Gathering case

Hi, I've been asked by the arbitrators to clear up closed requests for clarify on Requests for arbitration. Below is a courtesy copy of the content at the time of closing, for your future reference.

Please don't be deterred from pursuing this matter in an orderly way. Arbitration is always an option in the future if other methods fail.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

BEGIN --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for asking such a seemingly foolish question. I am still rather new to wikipedia and entirely new the arbitration. Does the "reject" decision from the arbcom mean that the "A Gathering of the Tribes" will *not* be allowed on the listing of Annual Gatherings? Thanks for the feedback. Bstone 00:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, just that the Arbitration Committee will not decide the matter one way or another. Fred Bauder 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred, for the reply. I wonder what you might suggest in the meantime? Since Lookingheart has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues I am wondering what the next step might be? Thanks. Bstone 02:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have the same question. Will the page remain protected? For how long? You state, "local Rainbow Gatherings don't belong in a list of the national Gatherings" which is my contention. But that hasn't stopped them from being added again and again. You, "suggest an article on local Gatherings." So did Aguerriero during informal mediation. Lookingheart rejected that suggestion. That didn't stop the on-going edit war. What happens if lookingheart adds 10 AGOTT gatherings before next year's National as he said he might in discussion? At the moment I see only 2 options, continue the edit war or let lookingheart post what ever he wants. Oceankat 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a nice article about A Gathering of the Tribes (Rainbow Family) explaining what that is all about together with a full listing of meetings? It might be nice to explore some of the issues. Wikipedia has no opinion about internal Rainbow Family issues. I have always had a lot more fun at smaller local gatherings myself. Fred Bauder 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Has this become a mediation session? If so, I agree with your suggestion as I did during informal mediation when Aguerriero suggested it. Unfortunately I don't know enough about AGOTT to feel competant in writing that article. Perhaps you would like to? The only "internal rainbow family issue" I'm concerned about is whether gatherings that in my opinion are not notable, not verifiable and in the case of the WV AGOTT and most likely the GA AGOTT violate wikipedia's policy concerning the posting of future events are appropiate additions to this article. And whether wikipedia has some means to resolve this issue. Apparantly there is none and since I'm not inclined to waste time in an edit war, I'm content to see anybody add any gathering they like to the list of national gatherings. Oceankat 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Oceankat. If this arbcom attempt has turned into a redirect for mediation, we have already done that. How is it possible that the arbcom is forcing us to use a mechanism which simply will not produce a result? Sorry if I seem irritated, but arbcom is supposed to be the final mechanism since all others have failed. I await a response. Bstone 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in this dispute, but rather in the next one listed above (Gillberg affair). At present, my request has received two votes to reject (and no other votes), on the ground that it is largely about a debate over content. So nothing is decided yet, but if the final vote is to reject, then I would have the same question as Bstone: if the other party has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues, what is recommended as the next step? What mechanism does Wikipedia have for dealing with a (hypothetical) situation where some editors are dishonest and unrelenting?  —Daphne A 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't mean to leave you hanging. I have unprotected the page for evaluation of the situation. As to the request above, I have been waiting for some response by the other parties. Fred Bauder 09:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is entirely disheartening. A case is brought before the ArbCom specifically and solely because mediation failed and an edit war would simply continue. Based on the fact that mediation failed entirely because one of the warring parties (Lookingheart) entirely ignored and rejected all attempts at official mediation, I can see no benefit in ArbCom rejecting the case, removing the page protection and "evaluating" the situation. Is there no mechanism in Wikipedia to resolve such disputes? Bstone 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If he starts edit warring again I will block him. Any administrator could have done that. That is why the request is being rejected; there is no substantial issue to consider. Fred Bauder 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though we have reached a resolution of this issue and for that I am grateful. Most likely and hopefully there will be no further edit wars over this as it was never my desire to see anyone blocked or banned from editing this article. Thanks Fred, for your time and your help.Oceankat 03:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

END --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Emergency medical technician

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If you would like to reply, please do so here. Leuko 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Posting factual, cited information hardly means is violated a neutral point of view. Please be specific in what you are saying as I have no clue what you mean. Usually when you accuse someone of something you have allegation to present. I see no such demonstration.Bstone 15:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit [2], among others. Please tell me how that is not POV personal opinion, and how that is in line with the WP:NPOV policy, and how any of that is cited with reliable sources. It appears to be highly biased ranting against the NREMT with absolutely no substantiation. WP is not the place for personal opinions, or unsubstantiated attacks. Leuko 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I did not state my personal opinion. I stated the feeling of many EMTs and EMS offices as stated on various web forums. Now, if there is an issue of utilizing web forums as a source then that is something I can accept. I find it odd, however, that you would be so quick to delete these comments but then agree that a criticism of NREMT section is allowable. Confusing abound. Bstone 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a criticism section is more than appropriate if properly sourced. These are the basic tenets of WP: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Adding personal opinion which is highly negative/critical is both WP:OR and not WP:NPOV. If you can find a WP:RS, such as a JEMS article, that shows that 80% of EMS providers think that the NREMT is bad, then you can add that. However, without a citation, it is WP:OR, and must be removed. Personally, I have been certified by the NREMT, and may share some of the opinions that you posted. However, WP is not the place for personal opinions - such overtly negative edits (or overtly positive) must be cited in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Hopefully that makes sense to you now. If not, I can try and explain it again. Leuko 03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)