User talk:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake/Archive 2

[edit] Mediation

In order to save space, and make my talk page a little bit less ugly to look at, I've moved this discussion to its corresponding mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Wikipedia:WOT

[edit] Epistemology Mediation

I read your comment on Talk:List_of_publications_in_philosophy#mediation and wasn't sure if you were withdrawing as mediatior or not. I would like to suggest a compromise something like this - The links be put back pending changes in the criteria for inclusion being changed. If a new policy is put in place for inclusion then the article would need to meet what ever new standards are set. SteveWolfer 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re

You have a very unique method of dealing with mediation. Out of curiosity, how does making each party write their own version of the article eliminate POV? I don't see how trying to merge multiple articles written by one person will make the article better... isn't Wikipedia all about everyone editing and creating the final article? I just don't understand, so an explaination would be helpful. Thanks. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geo.plrd"

It allows me to see where the dispute is.Geo. 23:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-14 mediation with Wiarthurhu

Could you remind User:Wiarthurhu that we've both agreed to stop editing the content in question and have been repeatedly asked by CQJ to stop editing any related content? He has been spreading the content in dispute to other pages, most lately Lightweight Fighter --Mmx1 13:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to say that my intervention would solve something, but really I have just as much authority as you to tell someone to not do something. I've heard a lot about Wiarthurhu... and I predict he'll be somewhere in ArbCom very soon. If you still need my help, feel free to give me a ring. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Since I am impressed by your skills in our last encounter I would like to ask you if you are interested in mediating again, since the editor and I seem to continue our personal disagreements. If not, that is OK. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. -The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you step in please. Zero is massively reverting all my edits and refuses to engage in civil discussion (see cabal page for details). I explained my edits, he deletes them, i.e. edit wars, and then offers some ridiculous and cerainly insufficient explanation for his actions. If this isn't a violation of WP:POINT (interestingly he filed a RFC claiming I violate this, it takes two to tango), WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and Don't be a dick I do not know what is. All in all his behaviour highly similar to that of a disruptive troll that is stalking me. As his edit warring over everything I do makes contributing impossible I will leave Wikipedia unless you are able to find some solution to what I see as stalking and aggressive POV pushing. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I just had to respond after reading this.

• You contend I break WP:AGF - "disruptive troll that is stalking me"
• You contend I break WP:POINT - Yet provide no evidence, not even when asked to on the cabal page.
• You contend I break WP:CIVIL - Yet, you have stated I am acting "like a dick"

I have asked you to provide proof of things you add, you seem to find it offensive when asked to do this for some reason. I ask you to state your claims about Bali and you give 3 unique versions on why you removed it. I ask you to prove Zarqawi PSYOP program is linked to Information Operations Roadmap and you refuse to, instead you just readd the part. I add a quote to explain the "Home Audience" mentioning in the article, a quote that follows the mentioning of "home audience" and you remove it. I am not even sure why it was removed as its relevant and explains the diagram that was reported on. I add the backstaory of Zarqawi and you remove that without stating why either, possibly because its in contention with the next paragraph from an editorial stating Zarqawi was a nobody. However the source I was using was not an editorial and a little more reliable, Washington Post over a non newspaper, and supported by the Zarqawi article itself. So again before you go claiming the world is after you. Can you please provide some proof the Information Operations Roadmap is linked to the Zarqawi PSYOP program? Can you please stop adding redundant sentences to the article, or giving a summary then giving the entire quote as well. Currently as the article stood in your version after reverting all of my edits without stating why, it was composed of 30% quotes. It was actually slightly higher then that. There was a program section that spoke about Information Operations Roadmap, which you have failed to link, instead of being about the actual Zarqawi program. The truth is there isnt enough content there for an article, creating a section of quotes about it, primarily from editorials at that, is not a suitable way to create a full article. Again next time address edits individually and do not just do a wholesale revert because you have a personal problem with an editor. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you fail to respond to the arguments I presented (typical troll behaviour) and you never do in any discussion, I will not continue your monologue. If The prophet has questions regarding my edits[[]] I will answer him. Of cours, on the cabal page and not here. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What arguments, you just keep ranting that I am after you ... Let me address each sentence individually so you can stop stating I do not address your issues.

Zero is massively reverting all my edits and refuses to engage in civil discussion (see cabal page for details)

Since the current discussion is based on Zarqawi PSYOP program, let examine. I made the following edits

• [1] removed information clearinghouse source. Bias source, as per VP:RS bias sources should not be used as sole sources for information
• [2] Please do not remove factual information, your editorial is more suspect then the Washington Post
• [3]
• [4] readded quote that explains the "Home Audience" its directly in the source, please be careful of selective quoting

Note this edit is actually jsut adding a space, I noticed I forgot an edit summary on the prior edit, so I created a line break and added the summary for the last one.

• [5] Program - removed portion already in header, its redundant

NoteIts stated almost word for word in the header.

• [6] removed Agencee France quote as its about an unrelated program as well as Rumsfeld document, against I ask you to supply a source stating this PSYOP is part of that roadmap, thank you.'
• [7] removed quote as its already mentioned in header in same detail, actually more clearer since it explains home audience, be careful of selective quoting

Note Contained a selective quote from Washington Post without the trailing information of specifying the program did not target civilians etc.

• [8] removed program section, its covered in header. sources were not about this program and quote is covered in header
• [9] Removed WOT as again its more directly linked to Iraq War, removed Smith Mundt Act, again please prove this program violates this act, no OR please
• [10] rm Roadmap, please provide a source stating these two events are linked

In the end Nescio just reverted everything stating rv revert that was done in several edits, please every thing you censor is relevant and sourced, you may have another POV, but Wikipedia is not about redacting out information that is uncomfortable

Again this user is attempting to battle a POV, however as I have told them, I dont edit via my POV because its actually contrary to my own beliefs, the issue here is facts. Their wholesale reversion did not prove any of the items that were brought into question. I am still waiting for an explanation on how the information roadmap is linked, via a verifiable and reliable source.

I explained my edits, he deletes them, i.e. edit wars, and then offers some ridiculous and cerainly insufficient explanation for his actions.

The summaries I provided show why things are being removed; redundant quotes, the entire article being made up of 30% quotes. Partisan sites being used as sole sources, something frowned upon and told to avoid. Linking of two seperate items without proof of their connection. Instead of challenging an edit or even stating why, he just reverts all of them with a blanket excuse, even removing things I added to the article, such as the quote explaining the home audience quote and the backstory on Zarqawi, not sure why that was removed again.

If this isn't a violation of WP:POINT (interestingly he filed a RFC claiming I violate this, it takes two to tango), WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and Don't be a dick I do not know what is.

I have asked this user on the cabal page to show some proof of WP:POINT violations, oddly enough the RfC against them has 3 certifying users and one supporting, they have yet to defend themself or counter the claims of that RfC. As for WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF they are not presenting any proof, to the contrary this user has stated to me that I was acting like a dick and accuses me above of stalking and harassing them when asking them for sources or proof, that is a violation of WP:AGF.

All in all his behaviour highly similar to that of a disruptive troll that is stalking me.

Not sure if you want explanation as their isnt much there then your own violation of WP:CIVIL.

As his edit warring over everything I do makes contributing impossible I will leave Wikipedia unless you are able to find some solution to what I see as stalking and aggressive POV pushing.

What POV am I pushing? I havent presented a point in anything. Removing statements only supported by a single partisan site is not pushing a POV. Telling you that you should prove a link between two events is not pushing a POV, filling out your selective quoting of "home audience" is not pushing POV. Giving the Zarqawi backstory that shows he was more then a nobody before the Iraq War is not pushing a POV. If anything your editorial of a source is pushing a POV, stating something completly in contention with the truth and the other articles on Wikipedia. I have sourced the information, and instead of proving it wrong or even denying its truth, you just removed it.

Have I adressed your concerns now? If not please restate them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disemvoweling Etc.

Greetings! Unpleasantries have broken out again on the same two articles as before. Any suggestions? Karen 18:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see on the talk page, nothing too violent has started, but I'll keep an eye out for the article just in case. Thanks for letting me know. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flower Power Support Thanks!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, that's a ...uh, pretty flower-power flower of, um, goodness. So make sure you keep it handy. c.c;; ~Kylu (u|t) 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put it into the chaos of my userpage. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation?

Could you please, please look into Zero's massive deletion of my edits and his bullying me into accepting his changes while he refuses to discuss how his changes are warranted?! If this isn;t disruptive behaviour I do not know what is. Clearly he is unwilling to justify his edits and then by edit warring into 3RR forces the article in his version. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about my inactivity. I was gone for a few days, but now I'm back. Er... well...

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
(this is me thinking)

This conflict has ascended far beyond the discussion of any article... and I honestly can't sort through any of the carnage it has created.

Ok, so you two obviously have some problems. I can see how Nescio feels that Zero is being a bully, and then I can see how Zero feels Nescio is being "whiney", or whatever. So... here's my idea. Since this thing is starting to get very personal, I suggest that everyone just continue to assume good faith, forget all the bad stuff, and move on. It may sound like denial of the truth, but I think if everybody just cooled off and forgot about it... then the personal conflicts can seep out, and the wounds can begin to close. If you don't like my idea, feel free to tell me why. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your efforts I think you should know the following:

• In another encounter we had a similar explosion of disruptive behaviour, resulting in the poll debacle you mediated. In an attempt to reduce tension I stepped back.
• To really make an effort I 1 mediated in a conflict between Zero and another user, 2 decided not to comment on the RFC against Zero, although most of the issues raised are identical to my grievances.
• Despite this he started reverting my edits yet again, also following me to articles to revert those, and repeatedly refuses to discuss but has no problem calling me names.
• The reason I asked for mediation is because it is evident there are personal issues, whixh another editor observed in the previous case, and was hoping to resolve that dispute.

Based on my previous attempt at cooling down, and the obvious failure of that tactic, I do not think that is a sufficiently good option. Personally I would like you to take the Zarqawui article as example and function as a go-between. The talk page lists several arguments of Zero I refuted yet he fails to respond to that. Maybe tou could ask him to answer. Second, I am curious what your thoughts are on the edit behaviour. Specifically the fact Zero does a major rewrite yet apparently I am the one that needs to justify the original version, while Zero does not need to justify his edit. Is it reasonable to ask from editors wanting to make massive changes that they first discuss them, or is it appropriate to ask for justification to not make those changes? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

They are called "edit summaries" they are located on the "history" tab at the top of every article. On that page you will find the following format:

• (cur) (last) {time of edit}, {date of edit} {username} (Talk | contribs) {summary}

Hopefully this helps put a stop to the claim I do not explain my edits, if not I will just post the difs and edit summaries on your page at length, not here cause it will be disruptive to put that much information on this users page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as you cannot see the difference between assertions (your summaries) and explanations (see my justification on talk page which you still have not answered, aside from repeating your claims) this dispute shall not resolve. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Then file the RFAr, I cant wait for an admin to decide. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 06:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having thought on it maybe I should file a RfAr. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I welcome it, then you cannot change the subject when asked to provide sources. Please do because you cannot ignore an admin and when I lay my arguement of you not being willing to cite or source, you will finally see why its policy. I am waiting to see your RFAr. We can also add all the information regarding your WP:POINT violations and my RfC that shows I was being attacked. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

People do not attack in RfCs, they express their opinion on the situation. It is an outreach to the rest of the community to help make a statement on the problem. the intention is not to attack you, but to critique the situation. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 02:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone commenting on the RfC felt it was being used as an attack, I am just repeating what they wrote. Or they felt I was being attacked before the RfC and the RfC was a continuation of it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 06:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So, Prophet, what do you suggest,aside from stepping back which did not work? Should I go to ArbCom? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am telling you to goto arbcom, I am tired of asking you to provide sources and you refuse to, this would be the perfect solution, especially cause then you can attempt to justify your actions in regards to the WP:POINT violations, you cannot ignore that either once its brought up in Arbcom. I see you wrote it up already, so just remember to inform me when its up so I can reply. Thanks --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't recommend ArbCom. Not even arbitrators recommend Arbcom. It was solely intended as a last resort, and I don't think this issue is big enough to be a arbcom issue. Any ruling ArbCom makes, someone will be unhappy with it. It causes many people to even quit wikipedia. In short, it's not pretty. I think the solution is within yourself rather than an external source. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 19:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can show us a way out I have no problem withdrawing the RfAr, However, at this point the mess makes it impossible for me to edit, since all my attempts at improving an article (by even including Zero's concerns) are simply made impossible. How can I edit simething when Zero does not even try to appear as if he is interested in compromise. Feel free to suggest anything that works and then I see no reason continue the RfAr. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr involving Zero

Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict I have with this user. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category MedCab Mediation

I am happy to use whatever discussion method you wish. Knowing that mediation can take time you also need to know that I am taking a wikibreak 2-18 August 2006. I am in the GMT timezone.

As the person who requested mediaton I am content to reach a consensus solution to this issue.

Unless it becomes relevant to the mediation, or you view it as relevant to handle here, I have no interest in pursuing what I perceive as potentially uncivil behaviour by the other party. I will leave that in your hands to decide. My sole interest is in the category.

Fiddle Faddle 09:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So, I think I understand the problem here, but just to make sure, I'd like to query some stuff really fast.

I understand Fiddle's point-of-view fairly well, but I'm not sure I understand Athenaeum's point of view yet. Can you tell me how you feel about the situation, Athenaeum? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle does not understand that categories are based on defining characteristics of places. So far the only two people who have disagreed with me on the renaming of the category have called for the county by county lists to be merged and the category to be deleted, ie they are further away from his position than I am! There is no question of accepting his position or meeting him half way. Do we want every town in England in hundreds of categories on the lines of Category:towns with a football league ground, Category:Towns with a Roman Catholic Church, category:Towns with a John Lewis department store (all 3 of them more important attributes than possession of a King George's Field) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Of course not! And virtually everyone understands that, so it is not done.

I am not going to waste any more time on this as Fiddle Faddle's position is simply eccentric and shows his lack of understanding of Wikipedia's conventions. Help him to understand that, and you will have done something useful, but there is nothing to mediate. He has already upset me and wasted a good deal of my time, and if I continue to be harassed about this nonsense I will simply quit Wikipedia. Athenaeum 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The strange thing about this is that any attempt at dialogue is met with dogma. I fear there is no discussion available, though it is heartening that the mediation process has elicited a response. However it is valid for me to respond to the point about (as an example) "Do we want every town in England in hundreds of categories on the lines of Category:towns with a football league ground, Category:Towns with a Roman Catholic Church, category:Towns with a John Lewis department store (all 3 of them more important attributes than possession of a King George's Field) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Of course not!"

My response is based upon the notability of the King George's Field, no more and no less. These fields are 471 fields as a memorial to a King of England - a lasting and permanent memorial, a notable memorial, and a memorial substiantially different from statuary. I have seen no memorial like this before - a dispersed memorial created with local pride. To class them with a department store or a church or even a football league ground is to use rhetoric, not to look at notability or at the category in question. They have been created by substantial local effort, are registered as charities in their own right, and are a part of the history of the united kingdom.

Ensuring that the category is applied to the places with a King George's Field thus creates correct cataloguing of the notable sites witin the articles for the places themselves. Seeking to strike out this category at all shows that the significance of the memorial is not well understood, and removing the category from the places which possess this significant memorial renders the category itself valueless.

It is Athenaeum's right to edit material and to be bold and edit if things are disagreed with. I have never disputed that right and uphold it. However, the concept of "if I continue to be harassed about this nonsense I will simply quit Wikipedia" is something I feel is unhelpful to the discussion. We do not, I think, edit based on taking positions like this. All our actions are and should be open to community scrutiny. And our editing should be capable of withstanding that scrutiny. Equally we should not even approach incivility when our edits are challenged politely and when we are asked to reconsider. I have not harassed and will not harass this user. I do feel harassed myself, however, and may reconsider my position of seeking to ignore behaviour as part of this mediation.

Fiddle Faddle 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Having just had a look at the discussion about renaming the category I was surprised to see the following comment which I have included here: *Comment I would also be happy to see this category deleted as per Dhartung to put an end to Fiddle Faddle's nonsensical efforts for good. Unbelievably he thinks is a worthwhile use of his time, my time and a third party's time to take this ridiculous matter to mediation. Athenaeum 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)"

This comment has been the item which has changed my mind about including the behaviour. I believe that calling my efforts "nonsensical" is counter to Wikipedia:Civility,though it is simply rudeness. I would very much appreciate it if this now formed a part of the mediation process and that this incivility, something which has characterised replies from Athenaeum throughout this attempted discussion, were brought to a halt. Whatever the views that separate us, civility is important. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a lack of sense of proportion that beggars belief. I repeat, there is nothing to discuss. Your views are cranky and ridiculous and that is the end of the matter. Athenaeum 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That confirms my view, I'm afraid, that Athenaeum is acting with incivility. I would like this to cease. We should be separated only by opinion on the subject at hand, not by what is starting to become abuse. To be clear, there is no history between us. It is just this issue that separates us. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Athenaeum, you're being terribly rude. Please avoid making statements about the editor, and instead focus on the content (which is what we're here to discuss). Insulting his character does nothing to help the situation. -The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your conduct is very disappointing. The only good thing you can do is tell him to drop it. His postition is laughable and I suspect he suffers from some form of compulsive mental disorder. If Wikipedia has no mechanism for dealing with cranks like this it is no wonder it has such a bad reputation among serious people. Athenaeum 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is now wholly unacceptable, and is defamatory and libellous. I Have listened to insults long enough. What appeared to start as a difference of opinion is now heavily abusive. I have now had enough of it. Athenaeum is entitled to hold different views form me, but is not entitled to abuse me. This is the more offensive since you, as a third party, have warned against rudeness already. Despite the abuse, certainly not because of it, I am content to take a consensus view on the category, though I think I am entitled to ask that the consensus be formed from experienced and long term editors with a large number of reputable edits to their credit. Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more I find it hard to assume good faith. Something in my water says "hidden agenda" here, otherwise, surely, we would be having a dialogue? I am ignoring the category renaming discussion entirely now, except to ask them to hold off on a decision prior to the outcome of mediation. That looks, however, as though it may spill over and dismantle the entire informal mini-project, which is to create county by county lists.

Should a list when complete have simply one field in it, naturally that list is not appropriate, and I will merge it with the next most relevant list. That is only common sense

I'm grateful for your request for politeness. I really have no idea how to proceed with this, save for asking for cool heads, probably unconnected with anything that has happened so far, to look at what I started out to do, and to help by reaching a consensus on it.

Again, if I am in error in my seeking to categorise what is a genuinely notable feature of (say) Amersham within the category "King George's Field", then that is truly fine, provided a true and informed consensus is reached.

Fiddle Faddle 18:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I must ask again that please keep it nice. Making negative statements about someone can not only be hurtful to them, but it also damages your reputation and lowers other's perception of you. As Wikipedia:No personal attacks states, discussion should be on the content of the encyclopedia, and not on the other editors involved. We are, after all, here to build an encyclopedia, so we should probably be discussing it instead of people. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 07:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake, Do you see any prospect of agreement here even to discuss the issue at hand? I have ofered and continue to offer, even after the last blast accusing me of mental illness, to discuss this. If you see no prospect of agreement what do we do? Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreement is very possible, but everyone has to be willing to agree. If someone is unwilling to agree, then it's nigh impossible. I understand your concerns, and I'm glad you're discussing it civilly. Thanks for keeping a cool head. So are we all going to come to an agreement yet?--The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand absolutely by my proposal for a consensus regarding the category to be reached by experienced and long term editors with a large number of reputable edits to their credit. In this manner I feel we have an excellent chance of reaching an agreement, whether I am personally in favour of the outcome or not. I believe all of our actions on Wikipedia must be subject to community scrutiny, and that the overall project has a high reputation because it is the objective result of many subjective opinions.

I think we have a second issue here, however. This is the issue of abuse. There is a point when anyone however cool headed, decides that the line has been crossed. I reached that point a day or so ago, and have had that reinforced this morning by the accusations levelled at me by Athenaeum. I see this as wholly against good faith and civility, let alone in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

I am at a loss to understand why this has descended into personal attacks, object to the behaviour being exhibited most strongly, recognise that I cannot require it to cease, but ask that it ceases. However, since the accusations are in the public domain, I feel that the time for apology is past. Mediation on the personal attacks is unlikely to succeed primarily because they are personal attacks. I believe we may need to proceed all the way to formal wikipedia consideration on the matter of the behaviour being exhibited.

Since I am taking a wikibreak shortly (see above) there is a possibility for Athenaeum to reflect quietly on the behaviour, and to seek to ameliorate it. Indeed that break itself may be just what the behavioural issue needs. We are stuck, however, with the twin issues:

1. The category issue - easy to resolve, by consensus. I suggest the resolution now wait until my return since I wish to put arguments to those forming the consensus
2. The behaviour issue - one where I regret the continuing abuse is hardening my resolve which is to remain at all times polite, not to respond directly (only responding within the terms of mediation or subsequent process) - which is becoming rather nasty, and harder by the day to resolve. Unless you see a different route I am starting to favour escalation of this to formal processes.

Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it's difficult for anyone really. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 09:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Difficult, yes. I hope very much it is not impossible. The self appointed task of editing articles is quite challenging on its own. Dealing with abuse when one should be discussing things is extremely unpleasant. Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:TeckWiz/Wikibreak

[edit] Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

[edit] Read talk page

That is a personal attack against me! Don't play games! KittenKlub 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's ok again. KittenKlub 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 01:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese dictionaries request

I'm the second party in the mediation with Eiorgiomugini and (like you) have been waiting for his reply. Please don't close this until you've heard the other side. I'll write up a summary of the problems for your review. Should I post it on the Cabal page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/ 2006-07-11_Eiorgiomugini_and_Keahapana_on_Chinese_dictionaries_articles]? Thanks. Keahapana 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The case page works. Once you post that will it be okay to close? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I've written up an explanation and will post it to the case page. Yes, it's OK with me to close after mediation. Best wishes. Keahapana 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There's still no response from our friend. hmmm... not really much of a dispute for me to resolve without the other user. :( --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 11:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me

Ahh. Thanks. That sure was frustrating. Thanks for helping out though! --DieHard2k5 | Talk 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Anytime! Helping folks is like a fetish of mine. Just give me a message if you need anything. Most of the work I do is mediating disputes, so that's what I tend to have a knack for doing. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! --DieHard2k5 | Talk 22:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

Nice page you've got. --ElevatedStork 16:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :D --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I copy it? And how? --ElevatedStork 20:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh. I don't care. What parts do you want? Color, images, everything? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 70.109.64.76

Having a bit of a problem with this fella. He has 3 vandalism warnings on his talk page, and he's being quite rude on Talk:Peter_Wentz. If you could talk to him or something, that'd be great. =] --DieHard2k5 | Talk 16:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a hopefully helpful comment... but if something happens again let me know. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)