Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:24, 6 December 2008

User:AGK/Header

Mediums

Re this revert, the link you provided supports exactly the reason I made the change in the first place. The plural at definition #5 is media, not mediums. The first definition in which the plural is listed as mediums is #6; the interpretation I had chosen was #7. I also think #3 fits better than #5, but the plural is the same media for that definition as well. (I don't feel strongly about this; I've left your revert alone.)  Frank  |  talk  22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you're quite correct. :-) I've learned something today, it seems!

I've respectfully reverted myself. (Additionally: sorry if I offended you by blanket reverting.)

Thanks for following up on this. Best, AGK 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, and thanks for your gracious followup. I actually enjoy the fun sometimes associated with words, and in my mind, the word mediums always brings up images of Johnny Carson as, of course, Carnac the Magnificent. I'm probably dating myself, but, whatever... :-)

Best -  Frank  |  talk  23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee. :-)

Nice cultural reference! Ageing yourself? Perhaps. ;)

Best, AGK 17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Contras

You or I should probably formally notify the participants of an intention to close, before closing it, I feel. I'll have time on Monday. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=256070403&oldid=251853613.

That seems acceptable; posting a notification was in fact my intended next action.

I've posted a notification to that effect on the Mediation talk page. (See hyperlink above.)

Regards, AGK 17:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi AGK! Hope you are doing well. It's been quite some time since you unfairly blocked me for writing about the Middle Ages, when all I was doing was mentionning the second half of the 16th century as an introduction to an article about the 19th century (France-Japan relations (19th century))!!! Holding no grudge though, I guess we're all trying to do our best here :) You are mentionning Durova's research of my image uploads here. Have you seen that I've had the opportunity to post an answer at the end of the thread, and also discuss extensively on Durova's Talk Page? I honestly thought it was common-sense to post 19th century photographs under a 70-years license (and I also know it is common practice on Misplaced Pages). Durova let me discover an alternative which is absolutely perfect with these images though: the pre-1923 license on En:Misplaced Pages. Conversely I have been deleting the files from Commons and transfering them to En:Misplaced Pages. I hope you will be kind enough to recognize that this kind of mistake happens, and that I am glad to correct them. Have you also noticed the huge quantity of high-quality photographs I have been posting on Commons? I don't think their is any better proof of my commitment to the quality of this encyclopedia. I would be gratefull if you could balance the tone of your comments about me at Arbcom, but of course, you don't have to. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi PHG. I recall blocking you, but not unfairly. (I'll re-read background on that later.)

I was not aware (nor made aware) of the on-going discussions regarding this matter. The evidence compiled by Durova seems to me fairly certain, and I would suggest that it is unlikely that the proportion of your uploads that are poorly licensed were all due to a mistake.

Do you really believe my tone on the RfAr /Evidence page is not balanced? I'm sorry you feel that way. I'll have a look at it again and see if any adjustements can be made. I would note, however, that as an administrator I'm fairly well known for being unbiased and neutral in all matters; if I have indeed been unduly harsh on you on the RfAr, it was not my intention.

Again, I'll conduct a review of my comment and a reading of the discussions you are pointing me towards, and re-evaluate my evidence post in light of that. Thanks for bringing your concerns to light.

Regards, AGK 20:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat mediation

You posted a response to my vote on Vassyana's nomination for ArbCom. I don't want to turn it into an RfC or anything, but I would like to make sure that we're all looking at the same thing and that I don't leave an inappropriate comment. I see you posted to talk:Prem Rawat in August 2008 regarding formal mediation. Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_37#Formal_mediation. Was that the occasion when you reviewed the mediation, or was it earlier? I ask because Vassyana wasn't involved in the 2008 mediation that was conducted by Steve Crossin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I was referring to Vassyana's mediation of a dispute on Prem Rawat that took place across (at minimum) the first half of 2007, rather than to Steve Crossin's mediation of a dispute of that article. I can see the grounds for ambiguity, however, what with my involvement in the latter. AGK 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that clarification. When did you do your review, if I may ask? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Mid 2007, at some point. I cannot recall a precise date (although I could, after an hour or two of searching, find the respective email in my inbox). The review was not, however, related to Vassyana's neutrality, but on a separate (and somewhat confidential) point; I did, however, take a look at V.'s mediating and—as noted in my ACE2008 comment in response to your vote for Vassyana—found no obvious non-neutral behaviour from his part. (Of course, if you can point me in the direction of a view examples of the non-neutrality, I'd be willing to reconsider my stance.) AGK 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • First, I should say that I wasn't a party to that mediation, and wasn't involved in editing the topic at the time, so this is based on what I've seen in reviewing talk page archives, etc. Among my concerns is that Vassyana allowed, and didn't discourage, mediation parties from doing him favors and giving him accolades. Jossi, for example, gave V. a favorable editor review, Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Vassyana and gave one of V's main articles a favorable GA review, Talk:East Asian religions. To mediate a contentious topic while receiving help from one of the main parties gives a bad appearance, in my view. I'm looking further into the matter for other examples. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I understand your thinking here, although I'm inclined to disagree with any inference that V. is a non-neutral mediator based on those examples. I think it would be more harmful if Vassyana messaged Jossi and told him to refrain from having any interaction with him outside of the mediation itself; if anything—in my opinion, at least!—that would probably only cause friction between Jossi and V. I can see why such "favours" may be interpreted as cronyism, but in the first instance I don't think Jossi was attempting to influence V., and in the second instance I don't think that those favours did result in V. developing a bias towards Jossi (and his respective side in the dispute). I am a more "AGFy" administrator than most, however, so I may be looking at this through rose-tinted glasses. I simply don't see any non-neutral mediating—whether deliberate or inadvertent—on Vassyana's part, and I ergo disagree with an opposition to his candidacy on that basis. My opinion is that of but one humble editor. :) As a general point of principle, I maintain that colouring a candidate as you have—as a biased sysop in complex content disputes—must be done with the utmost care, and only upon very certain grounds. I've fired a lot of thoughts your way, so I'll stop being prolix now and allow you room to breathe and rebut. AGK 23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I hadn't planned to spend my afternoon wading through contribution lists. Mediators and arbitrators have a responsibility to treat all parties with fairness, and that includes maintaining an appearance of fairness. AGF is important, but people in a position of relative authority shouldn't put themselves in positions where other editors have to extend large assumptions of good faith. As I wrote before, my opinion was formed by reading over talk page archives a year after the mediation. Searching another way, I'm finding further instances of V. asking for, receiving, or extending favors to parties on one side of the dispute.
            • Asks Rumiton for help.
            • Excuses 3RR by Jossi
            • Asks Jossi for help
          • Excuse me for being sensitive, but I think it's inappropriate for a mediator and one set of parties to be actively congratulating each other, supporting each other, and otherwise working together as warm colleagues on unrelated topics while there's an active dispute. Not long after that mediation some parties who'd never voted in an RFA supported V. who had fewer than 1000 mainspace edits. When I got involved in the topic this year and there was a call for mediation, the parties on one side clamored for V. to be the mediator, and he didn't see a problem in accepting until I objected. That indicates to me that he does not have an awareness of what it means to become entangled and involved, and cannot be counted on to recuse himself when appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

            • Fair comments. I concur that maintaining the appearance of neutrality is equally as important as being genuinely neutral in a mediator and in an arbitrator. I'm going to alert Vassyana to this discussion, as I think he should be aware of the events here—even if he doesn't comment (which he may indeed chose to).

              I would observe that as nothing but an enlarged Wiki, en:wiki requires a consistent spirit of collegiality to function. There is always going to be some cross-over between editors: such is the Wiki model. Whilst it is essential to avoid political gossip groups, cliqués, and cronyism (neither of which I am labelling Vassyana and the other editors involved at Prem Rawat as, of course—this is a general wikiphilosophy observation), it is equally not feasible to maintain rigid non-contact between parties and other parties and between the mediator and the parties outside of dispute resolution proceedings. I am unsure if V. and Co. fall into the former group or the latter... You evidently think the former; I make no comment; Vassyana, I am sure, would think the latter—as would the substantial numbers of supporters of his candidacy.

              Sigh.… It's a tough one. I'll chew on your thoughts some more. As above, feel free to rebut. I still see little hard evidence of genuine cronyism here. (And I would also point you to User:Vassyana/Recusal, which outlines V.'s standards on recusal—which may offset your concerns over recusal a little?)

              AGK 23:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

              • I note that Prem Rawat is not on his list of topics from which he'd recuse himself, despite his numerous entanglements and lengthy previous involvement there. I'm still looking over the contribution lists and talk pages, and will post anything more of value to this matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I believe my response to Ncmvocalist's questions should make it clear how seriously I consider the ethical imperative to recuse in cases where it is likely that preconceptions will bias my judgement. I will recuse even in situations where there is no direct proof of my conflicting interests. Even if I did not agree that I should recuse, I have little doubt that a request from either of you would easily fulfill my standards for a general request to recuse. However, due to my past extensive experience with Prem Rawat and the continued presence of many of the same editors, I would indeed recuse from a related case. Even if I did not feel that my prior experience would make sitting on the case inappropriate, it is clear that my participation as an arbitrator would only serve as a distraction from the main case and a potential source of conflict and drama. I would be willing to add Prem Rawat specifically to my recusal statement. If I can answer any questions to further clarify, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)