Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom Reedy (talk | contribs) at 04:43, 10 September 2010 (→Disruptive editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 (articles) /Archive 7

Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation

I have filed a request for arbitration on this question, naming you as one of the interested parties. Would you please sign your acceptance? Otherwise, let me know and I’ll remove your name from the request. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you not interested in getting this issue settled? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have 7 days to respond. Please give it to me. I don't need to be hounded daily. I am pretty busy with real life until this weekend. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, it is my sincere wish to participate in the mediation process, but I am uneasy about the way you phrased the filing. Mentioning specific violations, the use of the word "inserting", etc. do not sound very neutral. It sounds like you are arguing your case already, which I don't feel is quite fair. I looked at the other pending cases and there is a marked difference between them. Would you take a look at them - particularly ] which is quite neutral, as compared to ], where it appears war is breaking out before the filing has even been accepted (or more likely declined). Anyhow - I am wary of suggesting any language myself, for fear of further accusations, so I will leave it to you to consider my request for a some rephrasing. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote it as neutrally as I know how. I have changed "inserting" to "including". I don't know any other way to put it, since that is, in fact, the issue. And it asks for specific examples, although they are not called "violations", but "Articles concerned in this dispute".

As far as the process is concerned, it would suit me to not discuss it at all, but to allow the mediators to read the examples and discussions and come to their own conclusions without any comments from us. I realise that is probably a pipe dream, but I really and truly believe we've discussed every thing there is to discuss about the matter, and all that remains is for outside mediators to settle the issue without any lobbying from the principals. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm a little worried that there's some confusion as to the goals of Mediation here. The point of mediation is to get editors talking to one another and to help them work productively together through communication and compromise. If “we've discussed every thing there is to discuss about the matter” and the aim is for someone to “settle the issue”, then I suspect mediation may be a fruitless endeavour. What you're suggesting sounds more like Arbitration, which is a more adversarial process akin to a traditional trial where the sides present evidence and get a ruling handed down at the end. --Xover (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly no expert on Misplaced Pages law and I've certainly been confused in the past and had to have things explained to me. In any case, arbitration certainly cannot hurt and will tell us whether another step further in the process is necessary. OTOH, we might get it hashed out and not have to take it any further, which would certainly suit me and is in fact my hope, because I'm tired of wasting time on it. Tom Reedy (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is the highest court of the WikiLand—appeals to the deities aside—and their findings are binding; if they issue a topic ban (e.g. a given user is not allowed to edit on any articles related to a specific topic) it is absolute and final, if they impose a code of conduct (hyper-civility, for want of a better term, for instance) you'd better be prepared to do a lot of counting to ten. It's a bit like the Court of King Solomon. It is also, in my view, a bit of a nuclear option; it exists for when all other avenues have been exhausted, is extremely time-intensive, and tends to escalate differences before they resolve them (usually in a way that makes at least one, but possibly all, parties unhappy to some degree). But I mention it because the Mediation Cabal is likely to look for a commitment to good faith cooperation, a willingness to civil discourse, and a possibility for compromise; and if those elements are missing they are likely to refuse the request for mediation. Mediation is also not a process that binds the parties and issues no “verdicts” and so does not solve anything except in so far as they attempt to help the involved parties resolving the issue themselves. It is much a preferable alternative to ArbCom, but may not always be possible depending on how entrenched the involved parties are.
I wouldn't necessarily argue against requesting arbitration, as we've been getting nowhere fast for a long time now, but I do rather think it would amount to throwing in the towel and admitting a failure to resolve this in a civilized manner. Good neighbors should be able to resolve such differences without bringing Judge Judy into the fray. --Xover (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested to me that I use dispute resolution and this is the procedure that I'm following. Currently it's at the "* Suggest Mediation" stage. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Magnificent Work!

Well done for upholding the principles of Wiki justice and seeing off that serial sockpuppeteer RuelandHummer! I can't help thinking though that he rather enjoys being identified and getting the chance to make a major speech at the end of the chase when the case is filed. You might be better off ignoring him in future. FranceIsHog (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt: Shall you file the SPI, shall I, or shall we just get Andonic to block him again? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That was my first thought, too. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Check his contributions, it's clearly him. I've notified a couple of admins, hopefully they'll be blocked soon. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - let me know if you think I should follow-up. And good morning, everyone! Smatprt (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Shakespeare authorship question, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Shakespeare authorship question mediation

Dear user,

This is a quick message to inform you that I have taken the Shakespeare authorship question request for mediation. I will be spending a day or so trying to get an understanding of the dispute and create a framework to take the discussion forward.

Please understand that mediation is not a quick process and that a fair amount of patience is required. If any of you have any question feel free to contact me by email through the wiki interface.

Many Thanks

Your Mediator - Seddon | 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Smatprt.

Just following up on the message you left on my talkpage. A lot of cases that come through MEDCOM involve some element of either NPOV, or UNDUE. These issues are often the cause of many disputes. It is important to remember that there is no one size fits all solution to these problems. The key to success is a willingness to cooperate with parties, the ability of all to agree on a suitable middle ground, and the individual acceptance that the final solution is quite often not the perfectly ideal one but one that can be beared. In addition medation is a fluid process. With no set rules of engagement and lies down to the individual preferences of the parties and mediator. Seddon | 01:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Smatprt, your creation of the article Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays is disruptive. Have you forgotten this? Creating this page on the eve of mediation does you no credit and could be seen as a breach of good faith. Please take the necessary corrective steps to comply with the AfD result. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

From my talk page (let's keep the discussion in one spot for convenience):

Tom, the upcoming mediation has nothing to do with the afd of another article. I am disappointed that you are raising "good faith" as you have continued your deletion of content ] and ] - deletions which are exactly what this mediation is about! Regarding your comment about the new article, please see my entry on the article talk page.Smatprt (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Smatprt. You do what you think is right and I'll do the same. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)