Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:48, 6 July 2005

Republic of Texas

Hello. I think adding a sidebar to Republic of Texas was a very good thing. Howver, I removed the map of Texas as U.S. state, since the borders of the present day had nothing to do with the borders of the Republic, which as you know were larger. The other map in the article (which I created) are the historical boundaries (showing the difference between what was claimed by the RoT and was disputed by Mexico during that time). -- Decumanus 07:09, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Tom DeLay

Your points on the talk page sound pretty good to me, but why not post them and then make the corrections yourself? Best way to ensure it gets done... Kaisershatner 23:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jim Robinson/Free Republic

hey,

I noticed you've been expanding the Jim Robinson page. There is currently a minor dispute over whether the guy deserves his own page, or whether the infomation should go on the Free Republic page. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please comment on the Talk:Free Republic page. Thanks! --Jonathan Christensen 07:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only apparent participant in that "dispute," JC, seems to be you. The majority of others who have weighed in on the Jim Robinson talk page have favored keeping it separate, but rather than engage in a civilized, mature discussion there you have opted to ignore the comments there, focus on your personal disputes with another user, and tag the article for a VfD dispute when in fact doing so was inappropriate per wikipedia VfD policy. You need to grow up and learn how to work with other people before undertaking edits here. Rangerdude 17:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame that the tides are against you. I agree with your argument Ranger Dude, but at this point, there is no way to turn the votes around on the votes for undeletion page, which is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it merged. It is a waste of time to vote otherwise. I just wanted to say that you aren't alone in your argument. I run into a lot of people that don't make sense, are delete-happy, and merge-happy. Good luck with your situation. I'm sorry tis doesn't seem to be able to be won, but if you think I can help somehow, shout at me on my talk page. Mr d00d! 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I moved your comment to my talk page. Mr d00d! 02:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

A Question

Hi, I was just wondering if you had a Free Republic account. I'd really like to read what you have to say there if you do. You could post it on your user page, reply here, or post it on my talk page. --Halidecyphon 19:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - don't have one. And you can tell that to your buddy User:Jonathan Christensen who tagged you here as well. Rangerdude 21:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tagged me here? I just happened to watch the debate and took a look at the Free Republic site where there are many passionate people with interesting ideas and I was wondering if I could get some background on yours. FYI, I'm halidecyphon over there. Halidecyphon 13:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure you did. A self-admitted close friend of another user who was engaged in an editing dispute with me and who happens to agree with that other user's position against me just happens to stumble upon my talk page out of curiosity and, in further pursuing that curious drive, finds the need to inquire whether I am a user of Free Republic...presumably so we can all meet up over there and be freeper "friends," right? It's called trolling for information. Rangerdude 16:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that I am a friend of JCs, and that I found out about you and about Free Republic through the Jim Robinson edit debate (as stated above). I just wanted to learn more about the situation, and hopefully to understand your point of view. Thus my question. I'm very sorry if I've violated your talk space. Feel free to delete this discussion if you're so inclined. Halidecyphon 15:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see this: a discussion about reducing the length of Slrubenstein's block for breaking the 3RR on Jesus.--Silversmith 23:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Good work on the Jesus page. The only way to counter stuffing the ballot box is to be organized in like manner. Keep me in mind Nobs 05:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep it's a wikiclique at work. They're gonna be in for a shock if they think 2 dozen athiests are gonna rewrite 2000 years of human experience. Nobs 05:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I don't like the fact that you called one vote "ballot box stuffing", or that you claim I "expressed my surprise that the tide of the vote had turned", or any of the many other false claims you have made. Jayjg 06:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Fib, distort, and backtrack all you want but your ballot recruitment record speaks for itself, Jayjg. That's the great thing about wikipedia - it keeps a record of EVERYTHING including the evidence of your act found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Rangerdude 15:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have seen your involvement with the AD/BC dispute and want to tell you that you're absolutely right on this one. I won't get involved myself, having my hands full of other flaming stuff, but just one additional information on a similar thing in Germany: The traditional dating is "vor Christus (v. Chr.) " and "nach Christus (n. Chr.)", meaning "before" and "after Christ" (AD is used as a very archaic form), but of course after 1949 that wasn't well thought of in Eastern Germany, so they invented "vor unserer Zeitrechnung (v.u.Z.)" and "nach unserer Zeitrechnung", meaning "before" and "after our time reckoning". By that you can immediately tell whether a book comes from the East. I guess BCE/CE also stems from the same "attitude" (=POV), also there was no central comitee in the US or the UK. Regards, Str1977 15:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle

Katefan indicated she'd be willing to discuss the issues you mentioned once mediation was established. Would you be willing to accept mediation, so we can start to look at the real issues in the article and attempt to resolve them? There's obviously been much going on between you and I think a neutral 3rd party would help you guys (or girls) in reaching an agreement. -- Mgm| 17:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Would you object to this mediation to be done public on a subpage of Talk:Houston Chronicle? First of all, I'd like both of you to promise the follow these rules.

1. You won't edit the article while mediation is ongoing. Suspected sockpuppeting should be reported to me personally for investigation.
2. No comments aimed at the other party or their edits should contain loaded language that can be construed as offensive or otherwise hurtful.
3. Mediation should be done in good faith without regard for previous editing behavior.
4. Comments should be made about the other person's edits and not them as a person. If possible you should try to bring sources to the table which I can review.
5. If, somewhere along the way, you think there's a possibility to reach an agreement on any of the disputed points, let it be known as soon as you can.

Please respond to let me know if you agree to follow these rules and whether you object to public mediation. -- Mgm| 18:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

• "I would prefer that it focus primarily upon the differences between myself and Katefan0 regarding the section in question."
  

Yes, I was planning on giving those editors a seperate section to comment in. - Mgm| 06:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I've started a page for the mediation on Talk:Houston Chronicle/Mediation. Note that I've changed the first rule of the mediation (on editing), to accomodate your complaint on my talk page. Please provide a detailed account of your views on the article and which sections or sentences you consider disputed and provide alternatives you think are better. Wherever possible, please provide sources and diff edits to support your view. If you expressed your views elsewhere, please copy them, rather than providing links. - Mgm| 21:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude: perhaps you may wanna call the attention to the mediator that the tag team technique in mediation including a disinterested party may lack good faith, and is just an attempt to wear you down. It is a distraction from the issues under consideration and has no real basis pertaining to this article. Good luck. Nobs01 01:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No question of a pattern. Please note the administrator in question I do not beleive is an American; I beleive he resides in New Zealand. His politics are ideologically motivated and his understanding of American society, politics, and history is second hand. He appears very much affected by the export of John Dewey's ideas on public education, but has never had to deal with the diversity in everyday life of American thought and experience. Hence, he can come across as ideolistic and intollerent. Just my own dime store diagnosis. Keep me posted. Nobs01 05:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments

Please stop using the term "stalker" to refer to my efforts in this project. Your use of the term has the appearance of a personal attack. Thank you. -Willmcw 08:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Then please stop engaging in behavior that strongly resembles wiki-stalking. Following other editors around wikipedia to intentionally challenge, disrupt, and deconstruct every edit they make on virtually every article regardless of the content is extremely poor etiquette, especially when most of the said edits are petty changes or challenges made without merit or proper background. You have demonstrably engaged in behavior of this type towards me for a long time and have, of recent, increased its intensity in a manner that is deconstructive and disruptive to the general purpose of wikipedia. An occasional encounter on common topics of interest is one thing, but nobody made you policeman or gave you the right to unilaterally screen and deconstruct the work of all editors you disagree with politically. Rangerdude 09:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no policy against constructive, NPOV edits on Misplaced Pages. Labelling edits with a term that you apparently believe is a perjorative is a personal attack, regardless of its truth or inaccuracy, and there is a policy against that. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and personal comments in no way help that effort. Thank you, -Willmcw 09:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are, however, extensive policies and guidelines requiring etiquette and civility. Stalking other editors around wikipedia for no other purpose than to deconstruct, disrupt, annoy, and unnecessarily complicate valid and sound additions to the articles on this forum expresses neither, thus I will continue to object to your behavior and call it exactly what it is so long as you persist in your etiquette violations. I will also note that internet stalking is generally considered a form of trolling. It thus pertinent information to any arbitration proceeding involving harassment behavior that is deconstructive to wikipedia & precedents abound establishing this. Rangerdude 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude: yes I am familiar with the administrator in question. Actually I may owe him a debt of gratitude since after my blog site & e-mail account were hacked I decided to just do all my work in the wiki community. Given his analytical skills he should perhaps stick with hacking since thats seems to be where his real talents lie (incidentlaly, my original User:Nobs password was stolen about a week ago when I was still learning Firefox). And as to the rhetorical arts, the subjects parsing of facts really aren't worthy of the Flat Earth Society.Nobs01 18:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me amend the above "sometimes aren't worthy of the Flat Earth Society". Nobs01 21:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Since you have been repeatedly using personal attacks I have filed an RrC to gain other user input about that conduct. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rangerdude. I have nothing personal against you and don't understand why you choose to make personal comments and why you refuse to participate in mediation with me. Regretfully, -Willmcw 04:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion that by vocally stating my objections to your behavior of following me around the forum with overly harassing and deconstructive edits to my work, or wiki-stalking as I have described it, somehow constitutes a "personal attack" is a patent falsehood, Will. I have REPEATEDLY voiced my objection to your behavior and the general lack of etiquette it entails to no avail, thus directly confronting you on it with multiple requests not to wiki-stalk me was both accurate and necessary. To assert that I refuse to participate in mediation with you is another falsehood as well. I indicated that I did not desire for you to participate in the closed mediation between myself and katefan for reason of your pattern of disruptive and harassing behavior towards me. I did not state that you couldn't participate in the open mediation found on the second half of the page, nor have I ever attempted to prevent you from posting there. Given our differences, I think it is best that we should seek to avoid each other on wikipedia wherever possible and in all cases of articles except those where we both have an immediate and strong editing interest. I would hope that you would feel the same way, yet I also know that you have intentionally sought me out over the course of several months in virtually every corner of wikipedia, hence the rub. Sadly it seems to have come to seeking outside intervention. Since at this point, quite frankly, I want nothing more to do with you I am content to seek out the aforementioned solution. Whether you will or whether you'll continue more of the same however remains in doubt. Rangerdude 09:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I welcome mediation with you. Thanks for being open to the prospect. I'd be happy to withdraw my RfC if we can engage in mediation instead. My only complaint is with your personal comments. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

As I indicated, you are free to participate in the designated section of the mediation page (though not the closed one). If you do so I will consider your comments as any other. I will further note that standing issues remain as to your editing practices though, and I anticipate that you will find a means of addressing those practices that I have stated to be objectionable, of poor etiquette, and generally deconstructive to wikipedia. Asserting an objection with your editing practices is a criticism, and as I have emphatically stated it is a criticism I sincerely make and would like to see you resolve. That does not mean it's a personal attack though. Rangerdude 09:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude: I'm still a relative newbie and learning the process, so I may need your assitance in following the process. Please keep me apprised. Thanx. Nobs01 14:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Query

Rangerdude, did you make this edit or is someone playing games? SlimVirgin 14:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's addressed to you, not signed by you. My apologies. I can guess who's behind it. SlimVirgin 14:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your dispute

I wish you would re-consider some of your issues with Willmcw. He's a good editor who sticks closely to policy, and it's beginning to look as though you're following him around the board trying to make trouble for him, which is only succeeding in making you look bad; for example, with your support today of Poetatoe, who was clearly a troublemaker and a sockpuppet. Perhaps if you were to give yourself a break from interacting with him, you might see things differently in a week or so. Situations have a tendency to look distorted to us when we're in the thick of them, as I know from my own experience. I hope you'll give that some consideration. SlimVirgin 05:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Please see my response here. Far from "following" willmcw around the board, this latest dispute arose after he followed me (yet again!) to another article I was editing this morning. Nothing would please me more than if I could go a day at wikipedia without willmcw "coincidentally" showing up at the same article that I'm working on only moments after I've made an edit. The unfortunate reality, however, is that willmcw likes to follow me through my editor contributions page and has been doing so for several months. Thus whenever I make an edit on just about any topic, be it history, politics, or even an obscure scientific theory of astronomy, willmcw magically appears to instigate a content dispute. Rangerdude 06:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the example you gave at Eric Foner: you didn't originally write the disputed passage, but you restored it here and you edited it here , so you're clearly defending it. Will disputes it because it's unsourced and the critics are not named, which they ought to be according to Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Cite sources. Therefore, he asked you for a source on the talk page, and you ought to supply one if you want the passage to stay (or anyone else who wants it to stay ought to supply one), but it's up to the editor defending the edit to find the source, not up to the editor who's challenging it. Will has this article on his watchlist, and checks when someone's made an edit, which is why watchlists exist. Also, I'd say that if you genuinely wanted to avoid interacting with him, then you wouldn't edit a passage in an article that has already been the subject of a query by him. If you want to avoid him for a week or so, then don't edit articles you've already had a dispute with him over. A short break from the tension will likely help you to see things differently, and then you can proceed more calmly with mediation; or better still, you may decide you don't need it after all. SlimVirgin 06:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Since we're looking back to February, Slim, to justify edit disputes in June why don't you take a look at WHY willmcw has Eric Foner on his watchlist? The answer, of course, is he followed me there on February 15th after digging for articles I had edited through my editor contributions page. This, of course, was the same week he followed me to about a dozen different articles all over wikipedia for the explicit purpose of instigating disputes on each, many of them for deconstructive and bad faith reasons. I defended the original wording for the reason that I defend most original wordings - if material is factually valid but said to be in need of a source, the responsible editor making that charge will first seek out a source before hitting the delete button. In all of my encounters with him, Willmcw seldom if ever adds any new material to any of the articles i've seen him on. Instead he seeks out reasons to justify deletions - deletions that normally coincide with political beliefs, and a great many of them ones made without any real cause or even a true want of sources. Furthermore, expecting me to avoid edits to every article where Willmcw has been involved is an unreasonable demand given that, per his habit of following me around wikipedia, he has happened to involve himself in virtually every article where I've made a significant contribution and almost all of the articles that I have an interest in developing. Given his pattern of behavior, avoiding him by the means you suggest would effectively mean avoiding wikipedia. There's only one way to end the tension and that is for him to quit stalking my edits. But that is a choice only he can make. Rangerdude 06:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You say you "defended the original wording for the reason that defend most original wordings", namely that if the material is correct, but needs a source, the editor wanting to delete it should find a source. But you have that exactly the wrong way round: it's the editor defending the material who has to find the source. And how do you know whether something's factually correct if you don't have a source? If Foner has been accused of being un-American, there must be a reputable source for that somewhere, and if none can be produced, it has to be deleted. We're not allowed to insert our own opinions, or defend another editor's personal views. Will is acting in accordance with our policies, as he always does in my experience. SlimVirgin 07:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Much to the contrary, SlimVirgin. A critique of Foner's well known liberal politics very reasonably falls under Misplaced Pages:Common_knowledge which does indeed _encourage_ the finding of sources yet explicitly states "However, there are some claims that many Wikipedians find acceptable to report as fact, without citing any outside sources." IOW, sometimes it is indeed okay to say "the sky is blue" without linking to a page stating the sky is blue. The article further continues in asserting what types of common knowledge fall outside of this category, specifically items lacking consensus and falling under specific criteria. The remainder are left to the "forces of inertia, consensus, and moral suasion." Willmcw never contested that any such category applied. He did not seek consensus or seek to demonstrate the lack thereof. Nor did he even attempt to justify his deletion on any other principle than his belief of it to be unsourced. Rangerdude 17:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, I'm not going to answer every one of your many accusations. But with the Eric Foner article, like most of these articles, I went there because it was under discussion elsewhere, or because of an eidt that you or others made. In this instance, we were editing James M. McPherson, which contained a criticism of Foner. (Which you again attributed to "Common knowledge"). That includes this edit, where you inaccurately accuse me of adding some text about Foner: "What on earth are you ranting at me for, Jim? Your buddy Willmcw's the one who added that line! I have no problem with changing it back though" . It was natural that I would go look at Eric Foner as a result. Please be more careful in your accusations. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nice try Will, except that (1) you did indeed add that line , thus making my comment accurate, and (2) far from simply travelling between similar articles under immediate discussion on pages of a mutual editing interest, you spent that same week conciously following me to the far reaches of wikipedia for entirely unrelated articles on astronomy , obscure trade legislation , political thinktanks , historians , and history terminology , among other things. By the time you arrived at Eric Foner, you were in full fledged wiki-stalker mode and indisputably operating off of my editor contributions page. Rangerdude 06:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the diff you provided you'll see that I edited the line about Foner in the McPherson article rather than adding it wholesale. In any case, it was our editing of that line which led me to Foner, not an Ahab-like obsession with you. Chill out. -Willmcw 06:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

And if you look at JimWae's comment, you will see that it is directed at the line you edited in the version you changed it to, just as I indicated when I noted that I would change it back to the previous version. As to an "Ahab-like obsession," your behavior as documented above speaks for itself. Jumping from McPherson to astronomy to trade law to political think tanks to historical terminology, all of which I happened to be editing just before you showed up on each, is more than coincidence and serves as conclusive evidence that you have been following me through my editor contribution page. Rangerdude 07:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's 'cause you edit interesting articles. ;) -Willmcw 07:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Are you still interested in mediation? Andre (talk) 20:01, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, could you please respond to User:Andrevan so that we can start mediation? Thanks, -Willmcw July 2, 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Evidence Log Copy

User:Rangerdude/sandbox1/Evidence of willmcws wiki-stalking

writing of history on Misplaced Pages

Hello,

I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital, peer-produced works of history, including history articles in Misplaced Pages. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Misplaced Pages, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz at gmu dot edu

Willmwc nomination

Rangerdude: This is a political decision. You're not gonna stop his re-election. You may even isolate yourself. This could be an opportunity to wipe the slate clean and show good faith. Ultimately, he will be beholden to his supporters who elected him.Nobs01 17:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All true & valid; however one should consider the bloc arrayed in support. Senator Bill Bradley voted against Alan Greenspan for Federal Reserve Chairman in 1986, only to give evidence of his "mindless partisanship" when he ran for President in 2000 and everyone credited Greenspan (not Clinton) with the ongoing recovery. Nobs01 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin

RD: If you have a moment I hope you would seriously consider this nomination Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Feco. Thanks. Nobs01 30 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm ready and willing to mediate, so let me know when you'd like to get started. Andre (talk) July 2, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

We don't need to wait for mediation to start resolving this issue. Volunteer mediationn must be the least pleasant job in Misplaced Pages. I don't think we've given sufficient effort to working this out between ourselves.

Misplaced Pages is not a good place to edit for one who does not want to have others looking over their shoulder. I freely admit that I look over your shoulder and fix what I think needs fixing. We all look over each other's shoulders' and that is how editing gets done around here. Anyone who does not like having their writing "edited mercilessly" should not submit it. I believe you are saying that I am harassing you, but I think that I have always been polite and correct. Our editing collaboration has ultimately been positive for the encyclopedia. I am glad to be accused of adding content to articles, and I think that is the wonder of Misplaced Pages. We all add our little bit. I'm also glad to serve as an editor, questioning unnamed critics and excessive attention to vague controversy. If we can keep away from making personal remarks then I think that we can continue to work together productively. I'd be happy to stay on track for mediation, but ultimately we need to work this out between ourselves. Wikilove, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 09:02 (UTC)

There's a difference, will, between simply "looking over one's shoulder" and actively stalking. If you were checking my work on two, three, or four articles of common interest, and myself vice versa, it would be "looking over one's shoulder." Unfortunately your activity extends well beyond the simple checks and balances that entails and includes actively following me around wikipedia to in excess of 50 different articles on topics of all sort and nature. A great many of your attempts to edit my additions are plainly made in bad faith and aimed directly at frustrating, deconstructing, and/or removing them even when they are more than sufficiently sourced per wikipedia guidelines. It is this breach of Misplaced Pages's good faith assumption that makes stalking problematic, and the hostile environment it produces is why so many editors frown upon the practice. It should also be noted that there is ample precedent on Misplaced Pages that stalking behavior constitutes "disruptive editing" due to its breach of the good faith assumption including at least one case where an editor was personally blocked by Jimbo Wales for stalking another user with edits that were primarily minor and inconsequential yet exhibited a consistent pattern of specifically following that editor. Per Wales' decision, the stalker "was making a pest of himself by harassing" the other editor. I have addressed these concerns to you directly many times, will. I have explained and documented them in detail, and now I am seeking outside mediation to resolve them. It is unfortunate that we've come this far, but you've been completely unresponsive to my concerns and only intensified your problematic behavior as a response. Thus outside intervention has become the only alternative at this point. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)

I'm responding to your concerns by addressing the issue with you here. From the tone of your discussion it seems that you do not assume good faith on my part, either. Do you think that mediation will be able to restore our good faith in each other's efforts? That'd be swell if it could happen. Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Alright, how would you guys like to do this? E-mail, IRC...? Andre (talk) July 5, 2005 22:08 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's standard practice, but I have no problem with it, if that's what you two would prefer. Andre (talk) July 5, 2005 22:32 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble following this conversation. I would prefer to conduct the mediation according to standard practice. Email would be most convenient. Thanks, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:39 (UTC)

I strongly oppose email in this mediation for the reason of privacy, given that the complaint involves stalking. Misplaced Pages would be the best location to conduct the mediation in these circumstances. Thank you. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Private accounts through free services like Hotmail or Yahoo are easy to arrange. Due to the nature of this dispute we should proceed confidentially with private discussion. That is the usual way of conducting mediation and I think it is necessary in this matter. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 00:48 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. The stalking involved in this dispute, and the aforementioned concerns regarding behavior and name speculation by the other editor, have led me to conclude that a mediation by email is neither viable nor in the interest of my personal privacy and safety. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

Your safety?! -Willmcw July 6, 2005 03:04 (UTC)

Email's an excellent way to spread bugs, viruses, and all sorts of other nasty programs, to say nothing of its insecurities. So yes, since this is a stalker case my safety. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

I don't care what mechanism we use, but mediation in public is not likely to succeed. Whatever confidential communication technique you prefer is ok. Thanks, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 04:40 (UTC)

I would like for there to be an accessible and permanent record of all proceedings, at least to the parties involved. I am doubtful that the mediation, if done on a technically "public" section of wikipedia, would even attract the attention of any readers beyond the three of us. Thus it would be little different than what could occur privately by email minus the email security threat and aforementioned issues. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)

What purpose is served by having a public discussion since it will be limited to the three of us? I think that discussion needs to remain confidential so that we don't have to worry about our comments being used again subsequently. IRC is another option, or Andrevan may be able to suggest something so you won't have to fear me hurting you. -Willmcw

Given comments of that sort, I must question exactly what it is you are intending to say that you fear receiving a public eye. You "hurting" me is not my fear, but you stalking me further and you "hurting" my computer are events I would rather not take the chance of encountering. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)