| Revision as of 20:07, 1 May 2008 editGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 editsm →Before we begin← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:24, 1 May 2008 edit undoGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits →Before we beginNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| :I'd be most comfortable with an on-wiki discussion, largely because I haven't a clue about how to use IRC. That, and IRC in this case would be pointless; I live on the West Coast and probably would miss most IRC deadlines anyhow. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | :I'd be most comfortable with an on-wiki discussion, largely because I haven't a clue about how to use IRC. That, and IRC in this case would be pointless; I live on the West Coast and probably would miss most IRC deadlines anyhow. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Before we begin== | ==Before we begin== | ||
| I would request ] to immediately stop removing cleanup templates without justification from ] articles during the mediation period. I note that |
I would request ] to immediately stop removing cleanup templates without justification from ] articles during the mediation period. I note that hi is currently engaged in the merger of fictional characters & monsters in Lists, such as the fictional crreature ]. However, I view the removal of the cleanup templates, such as in whereby he effective striped the cleanup template from the last version prior to merger, as unwarranted and unjustified. | ||
| I also request that of the cleanup templates which I have placed, and that ] has removed prior to the redirects, be restored to '''all''' of articles from which |
I also request that of the cleanup templates which I have placed, and that ] has removed prior to the redirects, be restored to '''all''' of articles from which he removed them prior to redirect, such that the final version prior to redirect includes the cleanup templates. I must insist that they be restated as an indication that he intends to enter into this mediation in good faith, and that he is not gaming the system by using the redirection of these articles to seruptiously delete the cleanup templates from the edit history without effecting cleanup.--] (]) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:24, 1 May 2008
Parties to mediation
Can I still be added as a party to this mediation? Ursasapien (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Bilby also requests the same. . BOZ (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have invited them to note agreement to mediation and join in. Vassyana (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can I still be added as well? Web Warlock (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to note that I hadn't heard from CSHunt68 before he signed to "agree" on the case page, nor has he signed himself in as an involved party, so I'm not at all sure what's going on with him. BOZ (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed CSHunt68 from the case and left them a note. Vassyana (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Venue
Before we begin, we should decide where to discuss this. I can create some subpages for a centralized discussion on-wiki. We can also try to arrange real-time discussion via IRC or Skype. A private MedCom wiki is also an option. Each of them has advantages and disadvantages, but it mostly depends on what you are all most comfortable with as a group. No need to make a !vote out of this. Just leave a brief reply with your preference, and preferably a brief explanation for the choice. Vassyana (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure how well real-time discussion would work for me, but I would definitely be willing to participate in an on-wiki discussion. However, there may be some time differences/delays among the parties. Ursasapien (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if real-time was workable; ISTR I'm not the only brit among the parties, but I'd be surprised if we were all within 2-3 hours of each other (timezone-wise) and it'd be hard if we're not; plus I have a life and all, currently consisting of paid work, exam revision, a project proposal and presentation for such, and then the project itself, so I can generally not spare more than 10 minutes at a time (hard to have a proper conversation during that time). I can see the benefit of mediated communications to avoid the tone heating up, if you (Vassyana) feel that could be appropriate. I, personally, have no problem with mediation being publicly viewable as long as uninvolved parties can stay quiet. SamBC(talk) 10:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unlike SamBC, I don't have a life (I've reduced my teaching load to focus on research), so real-time discussion would be viable, if perhaps not ideal. But I'd be just as comfortable going on-wiki. I don't mind public or private, either - I'm happy to defer to Gavin and others on that one. - Bilby (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Real-time is likely impossible. Gavin is in England for one, and I've been having connectivity issues so I can't commit to being online at any particular time. I'd be fine with discussing here on the talk page (I've seen that done in other cases) or on a brand new subpage(s). I'm fine with it being public, but a private locale limited to just involved parties (or maybe just a page where only involved parties and mediators can edit, but anyone can view) would help avoid anyone not involved trying to turn this into some kangaroo court. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion by sub-page would work best for me.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thinking about it, I have a suggestion I feel might be wise. I'm not sure how we would do it, but it may help if everyone could separately state their basic initial view, without seeing one another's and thus acting in reply to it. That way we all get to set out our point of view equally. I suspect it would have to be done by emailing Vassyana and collating them once they are received, onto a single page. SamBC(talk) 15:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be most comfortable with an on-wiki discussion, largely because I haven't a clue about how to use IRC. That, and IRC in this case would be pointless; I live on the West Coast and probably would miss most IRC deadlines anyhow. -Jéské 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Before we begin
I would request BOZ to immediately stop removing cleanup templates without justification from Dungeons & Dragons articles during the mediation period. I note that hi is currently engaged in the merger of fictional characters & monsters in Lists, such as the fictional crreature Tyrg. However, I view the removal of the cleanup templates, such as in this example whereby he effective striped the cleanup template from the last version prior to merger, as unwarranted and unjustified.
I also request that of the cleanup templates which I have placed, and that BOZ has removed prior to the redirects, be restored to all of articles from which he removed them prior to redirect, such that the final version prior to redirect includes the cleanup templates. I must insist that they be restated as an indication that he intends to enter into this mediation in good faith, and that he is not gaming the system by using the redirection of these articles to seruptiously delete the cleanup templates from the edit history without effecting cleanup.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)