| Revision as of 18:16, 20 August 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 240h) to User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 14.← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:59, 23 August 2010 edit undoNanobear~enwiki (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled12,272 edits →Clarification request: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| :Having mediated a similar case before, I actually see a lot of good things that Ludwigs2 did there. He's tried to get everyone involved and reminded people along the way that the outcome isn't binding. There are times when a mediator has to say "well enough". The issue under discussion is so politically charged that you're very unlikely to get complete agreement no matter how much effort is put in. When arguments start to be repeated and things start to turn personal, it's often better to close a mediation - a mediation that ends with editors at each other's throats is often worse than no mediation at all.<p>That said, I'd be surprised if the decisions made during the mediation stand up outside of it; as I said, it simply too politically charged a subject for any reasoned discussion to prevail. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | :Having mediated a similar case before, I actually see a lot of good things that Ludwigs2 did there. He's tried to get everyone involved and reminded people along the way that the outcome isn't binding. There are times when a mediator has to say "well enough". The issue under discussion is so politically charged that you're very unlikely to get complete agreement no matter how much effort is put in. When arguments start to be repeated and things start to turn personal, it's often better to close a mediation - a mediation that ends with editors at each other's throats is often worse than no mediation at all.<p>That said, I'd be surprised if the decisions made during the mediation stand up outside of it; as I said, it simply too politically charged a subject for any reasoned discussion to prevail. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::OK, thanks for your thoughts and perspective. I guess I was looking at the consensus conclusion and thinking that trying to implement it would be somewhere between provocative and explosive. Of course, the politically charge nature of the issue is not Ludwigs2's fault. ] (]) 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | ::OK, thanks for your thoughts and perspective. I guess I was looking at the consensus conclusion and thinking that trying to implement it would be somewhere between provocative and explosive. Of course, the politically charge nature of the issue is not Ludwigs2's fault. ] (]) 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Clarification request == | |||
| Since you were the drafter of topic ban, could you please clarify whether edits like (notice the quote) and breach the letter or the spirit of the ban? The same question was recently by the restricted person himself, although after the edits. ] (]) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:59, 23 August 2010
|
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 2 August 2010
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 9 August 2010
Deleted Article Michael Oliver (referee)Hi, you deleted the article about a football referee Michael Oliver due to his lack of notability which was probably spot on at the time. However, this guy has now been promoted to the Select Group Referees who referee games in the Premier League and thus liable to become a higher profile person. You will notice from the Select Group article that he is the only one who doesn't have an article. I suspect the very first controversial decision he makes would result in a lot of totally biased vitriol being written about him as a new article so it may be worth restoring the deleted one as a starting point. (I don't know if I've raised the query in the right way, so apologies if I haven't approached this request in the right manner.) Seedybob (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC) The Signpost: 16 August 2010
Race and Intelligence CaseHi Shell... I noticed your recent votes on the R&I ArbCom case, and in particular your comments on Ludwigs2's views of the mediation. A couple of days ago I noticed this mediation where Ludwigs2 was mediator, which was closed earlier today. The consensus conclusion of the mediation was to rename the article Israel and the apartheid analogy to Israel and Apartheid. I took no part in the mediation or the article, having only come across it by accident. Ludwigs2's comments on the R&I PD talk page had made me wonder about judgment, and seeing this mediation and it's (in my opinion) potentially provocative conclusion made me wonder further. Consequently, I thought it worthwhile to provide you with a pointer to this other mediation case for your information, and in case it assisted you in your deliberations. I will post a note to Ludwigs2, advising that I have made this post, in the interests of transparency. EdChem (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarification requestSince you were the drafter of this topic ban, could you please clarify whether edits like this (notice the quote) and this breach the letter or the spirit of the ban? The same question was recently asked by the restricted person himself, although after the edits. Offliner (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
gmail.com
