User talk:Xavexgoem

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Note - I am lazy. I will reply on my talk page.

archive 1 (sep 07 – jun 08)	archive 2 (jun 08 – aug 08)	archive 3 (aug 08 – nov 08)	archive 4 (nov 08 – feb 09)
archive 5 (feb 09 – jun 09)	archive 6 (jun 09 – mar 10)	archive 7 (mar 10 – feb 12)	archive 8 (feb 12 – feb 14)

PrefixIndex - ArticleSandbox

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice request

Kindly refer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/_Nayar-content_dispute-3O_and_consensus_failed

After 30 and multi-party discussions have not resolved the content dispute, i have tried to engage in the next level of dispute resolution namely mediation. However it gets repeated declined as the other parties refuse to participate. The end effect being that edit wars of the core issue is spilling over to allied articles. Personal attack and manipulative slander to character assainate oppenent as racist etc - basically detour tricks from primary core issue.End effect - the edit wars continue and spill over several allied articles. How do i handle this situation to the next level and take up content dispute to the next level if other parties disagree to co-operate and recognize it ? Your suggestion could be useful.Thanks in advance Sanam001 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for taking the time to review hip-hop dance. I know it was a long article and a long process. I'm glad you stepped up to do the review. I really appreciate it. // Gbern3 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I wish I could've done more, but I had about 3 people pressing me to complete it (otoh, I might never have finished it without them!). Xavexgoem (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Walt Whitman

That's a featured sound already. I'm not doing work on Wikipedia right now, because of the Durova situation. How bad is it? After lying about having permission to post material, Durova offered to seek its removal... if I threw out my main evidence. She evidently thinks this is a "good faith offer". See her talk page history: she deletes anything that looks bad on her. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A Smile from the Trenches

Can you explain why you replaced by db-band with a prod? Woogee (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No good reason. User wasn't going to return, but if he did he had 5 days to make it better. Deleted anyway, to save myself having to be on the defensive. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. ArbCom wants comments from prospective mentors, if you please. --Tenmei (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring

Xavexgoem -- I hope you are willing to help me with what appears to be a non-standard problem-set.

1st try -- message was plausibly "puzzling" or too complicated

At best, this enquiry will serve as a tipping point which moves you to post a thoughtful comment at active ArbCom thread. At worst, this diff becomes the sound of one hand clapping. The topic needing resolution is something to do with organizing? or structural planning? This is a draft effort to use graphics as a tool in crafting a non-verbose response to Carcharoth's diffs here and here. Please help me improve this with constructive criticism. What I construe as Carcharoth's main points are highlighted in yellow. I plan to post the following in an ArbCom thread. Can it be made clearer? shorter? better? Note: The text highlighted in beige is already posted in the thread. Arbitrator views and discussion I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC) This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) GOOD — yes, of course "...it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this"Carcharoth NO -- it is unreasonable to pose ill-defined hypotheticals. Unreasonable to expect anyone to formulate crisp analysis or "answers" given that parameters of prospective mentoring issues are non-specific. The flexible role of mentors exists to address unforeseen problematic circumstances which can only happen as the future unfolds. Establishing tentative framework of organization and plan for mentoring task force is accomplished; but it was and continues to be a time sink in relation to primary mentoring objectives, e.g., addressing express WP:TLDR problems. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) WRONG "...there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong."Carcharoth NO -- No one can predict how this is going to work. The only thing to be done is to see how the teamwork relationships evolve across coming weeks and months. NO -- this is already a time sink with no observable rewards/outcomes, no difference in non-contextualized speculations, no way to distinguish "right" or "wrong", and no apparent linkages with •cohort of allegations in record •principles adduced in record •findings-of-fact adduced in record •remedies adduced in record •record of ArbCom uninvolved inaction. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) DISCONNECT? or DISJUNCTION? Further speculative planning is unproductive. Conventions of law of diminishing returns inform prudent decision to terminate pre-planning. The exercise is nothing other than a discouraging time sink. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak" Carcharoth NO -- Frustration? Frustration of purpose? I have now waited for NINE MONTHS for responses to questions about what happened in the ArbCom case. •Sept 09, waiting 3 months -- Carcharoth e-mail postpones questions with delay •Dec 09, waiting 6 months -- complaint-driven ArbCom adopts to conclusory allegations without scrutiny or discussion, ArbCom requires delay until mentors can be located •Mar 10, waiting 9 months -- ArbCom exacerbates time sink with delay NO -- Frustration = Aggravation? Making things worse? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR in what way? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly."Carcharoth NO -- the notion that ArbCom has anything to do with "setting something up" is an illustration of The Emperors New Clothes which entails adverse consequences of pointless delay. NO -- collapse or failure has little or nothing to do with ArbCom except •avoiding time sink of parsing theories and hypotheticals •ensuring that volunteer mentors receive ArbCom's support and encouragement and thanks in addition to mine •determining parameters for decision-making which leads to ending involuntary mentorship. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Involuntary mentorship is defined as punitive. •NINE MONTHS of punishment for what? teaches constructive lessons in what way? •THREE MONTHS blocked editing for what? expands comprehension or understanding in what manner? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR as predictable sequelae from what methods? Summarizing this record: Escalating alphabeticals, catchwords, catch phrases, etc. have overwhelmed coherent discussion with references to policy acronyms and loaded language. My seriatim responses were derided as WP:TLDR ... and delay muddied an already complicated array of facts, factoids and factors. --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Hypotheticals In theory, it is not unreasonable to ask hypothetical questions; but in practice, the attempt can easily devolve into a time sink. Illustrating the point with a timely issue: Is there a constructive value in examining failures attributable to ArbCom — serial incidents in which ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? Can you suggest a better way to solicit your help in a specific context? Please contact me by e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My initial message is now collapsed. A couple of mentors offered suggestions about how I could have written differently:

• diff "I would suggest writing shorter responses ... and just in general not try to summarize the entire situation ...." -- Kraftlos 19:39, 18 March 2010
• diff "I am learning to give people what they ask for. If they want more info, they'll ask for it ... [which] would be better than being flooded with information that must be sorted through. --McDoobAU93 00:40, 19 March 2010

Let's pretend I didn't send you the "1st try" message. Instead, let's assume this "2nd try" message is the beginning of an unanticipated new thread.

If you please, I want to ask for two things:

Advice. I want to ask for comments about the use of format as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

Action. Will you post a comment at the active ArbCom thread about a mentoring group for me?

Thank you for your willingness to help me to re-think a style of communication which is a barrier to my working collaboratively with other people in our Wikipedia venue. --Tenmei (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, it's not hard. Just be neutral and don't be a dick. Style of communication? Be simple. Be to the point. Don't write long messages with lots of reasoning. Discussion is best in three sentences, and building all of it from there.

Again, I cannot help in ArbCom, etc.'s methods to try to dictate mentorship. I've tried mentorship with many people, and it hasn't worked out well. Certainly not when it came from ArbCom's mandate. The height of WP bureaucracy I want to get involved in is the workings of MedCom.

If I could suggest anything to you, it would be to pick up a case at MedCab and try mediation. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Atama

I filled out the nomination page. Hopefully I wasn't too verbose, I tried to avoid TL;DR. Thank you. -- Atama頭 22:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Updating Admin Coaching

Hi, I see that you are listed as an active coach.

This is just a reminder to ask that you keep the entry at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status up to date - if you take on a new student, or a student stops being coached, could you update your entry?

Please accept my apologies if you have been doing this - I'm sending this to everyone on the current active list, and not trying to track down what coaching is being done!

If you are no longer willing to coach, please remember to move your name to the "Former coaches" section!

Keeping the list up to date means that any potential coachees can clearly see what the current state of play is!

Thank you for your attention... and now, I'm off back to what I was doing before!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Our dispute is now resolved. I wanted to personally thank you for your help.UBER ^(talk) 03:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Xavexgoem (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for participating.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Good revert

Thanks for the revision on the revert, I probably threw the baby out with the bathwater on my change... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The more bored I am, the better editor I become :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1953 iran coup

Could you explain the reasoning behind the decision
Decline - not all parties have voiced their disagreement explicitly on the list within a reasonable timeframe
The parties that did not voice their disagreement did not because they have dominated the editing and like the article the way it is. To change the article starts an edit war so it remains more or less the way it is. Is there anything dissatisfied editors can do in a disputed article if the satisfied editors do not want to participate in dispute resolution such as Mediation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

MedCom accepts cases if all parties agree to mediation within 1 week of the case being filed. It was clear looking at the talkpage that some editors may have been less interested in mediation and more in arbitration, which I regret as a trend in the community.

The Mediation Cabal, however, has no such restrictions, and is a more active mediatorial body. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit re: Obamacare

Right on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xray84 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

race and intelligence mediation

thanks, but please do not close a mediation without discussion of the issue in talk. --Ludwigs2 10:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem: I've archived the 'closing the mediation' thread and will reopen it at the appropriate time. I did that solely to prevent a new set of distractions from entering the page, no other reason. If you'd prefer another approach, please let me know. --Ludwigs2 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ah, dear; I may need to make a request of you. Arther Rubin just appeared on the mediation with the statement that he would not commit to not reverting (even though he's not actually a part of the mediation). I'm ok with him in the discussion - I welcome his opinion, and I think the final draft will benefit if he participates - but I'm worried that there's a little back-channels organizing going on, and that the situation may turn into a revert war in mainspace when the revision is done. If that starts to happen, I may ask you to revert to the newly edited-in version and lock the page for the duration of the mediation, just to force the participants to discuss the matter. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but a heads up that I may come here abeggin'. --Ludwigs2 21:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Under no circumstances do mediators lock a page to force discussion, and certainly not to force a version. You do need to get consensus. I said it before: prepare for a round 2. You need MathSci and Arthur, and you can't get around that. Extend an olive-branch (and not backhanded). This is harder than it looks. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I think you misunderstand my concern. I don't want to lock the page to enforce a version, but you know as well as I do that if it comes down to an edit war the page will get locked, and in this particular case if it gets locked on some other version than the one being discussed in mediation it will simply scuttle any chance the mediation has of accomplishing anything. This is not your average edit-warring situation, and I am not asking for a proactive lock; but if it gets locked, I'd like it to get locked on the mediation version just for the sake of the mediation. This is just to prevent people from circumventing the mediation process entirely.

I know I need Mathsci, and Arthur, and a whole bunch of other people as well. but you go back and you read that ANI thread, and you tell me if I have any reason to expect that he would take an olive branch from me if I offered it. he made up his mind about me ages ago (loooong before this thing), and there is nothing short of me stopping a super-nova from destroying the earth that will improve his opinion of me. don't get me wrong, I'll treat him fairly and well if he decides he wants to participate in the mediation properly - he's not a bad guy, just a bit of a jerk when my name gets mentioned - but I'm not fool enough to think that he will ever of his own free will cooperate with me, no matter what I do. He's been gunning for me too hard, for too long. I suspect now that his self-image is wrapped up in seeing that this mediation fails, because in his mind that would mean that I failed (as though I really care that much), and that would make him happy, regardless of the side effects to the article. Is that how you want this to be settled?

Now, as I said, I'm going with AGF on this and assuming that things will progress smoothly, and without massive article reverts and such during the the initial stage and the review stage. If that works out, I think that what might come out after the review is a set of revisions that will be at least moderately acceptable to all sides, and consequently a much stronger article. However, if it doesn't, and an edit war starts, and the page gets locked (I'll request a lock myself in that case, and make the same request there that I'm making to you) then the choice is not mine: you (a collective 'you' referring to admins) can either help protect the mediation process just long enough so that we can review and revise the article to a stronger state of consensus, or you all can allow one side of the dispute to destroy any progress that has been made without ever stepping foot into the discussion. It's really no skin off my nose - I'm doing (and will continue to do) the best I can with what I'm given, and if the whole thing falls apart I'll walk away with a smile and go do other stuff. To my mind, though, you all have to decide what's best for wikipedia - supporting a particular version for a short time to give the consensus process a bare chance, or letting the whole thing go back to the same kind of crapulence that led the page into mediation in the first place.

I don't envy you that choice, but that's the choice you all have. sorry. --Ludwigs2 23:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be locked on the wrong version, regardless. Either it's locked on the mediation version, which will anger Arthur and MathSci, or it'll be locked on the non-mediation version, which will anger everyone in mediation. It's a catch-22.

As for that olive branch: neither of you are really great towards each other. I'd like to see you try, honestly, without sniping at him. You go first, take the high road. The only chance you have of keeping the mediation going is by working with them somehow. It doesn't have to be through the process, it can be on the talkpage of the article, userspace, whatever...

This is like chess, like a game: imagine what will happen if the page is locked on the mediation version because Arthur or Rubeinstein or MathSci reverts. How can you make good of that? What are the chances that, when all is said and done and the page is unprotected, that the article will be any better than it is currently? If you don't reach out to those folks, what are the chances?

These are things you have to do. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A mediated version is not a 'side', and casting it as one before it's complete is a sure-fire way to the mediation. but, as I said, I will do the best I can with the cards I'm dealt, so I guess I will let go of my unpleasant (and not-yet-founded) fears, see what happens, and work from there.

I have to say though (from a distanced perspective) that this whole thing is one example of a major failing of wikipedia. Wikipedia has a lot of language about using a consensus participation model. but in practice what wikipedia uses is a liberal participation model, and the difference is painful. there's no surprise that people here don't see it - few outside my particular discipline would - but you can see the effects of it everywhere. The difference is in what the models guarantee. a liberal (classical liberal, to be precise) participation model guarantees the right of expression - people are allowed to express themselves fully within strict but necessarily nebulous bounds of 'not doing harm' - while a consensus (read that as deliberative) participation model guarantees the right of discussion - people are allowed to express themselves fully within strict bounds of 'not harming the discourse'. The two systems are almost identical in low-tension arenas, because in low-tension arenas people will not generally have the urge to make discourse-undermining statements (or where they do, it is easily identifiable as an attempt to undermine discourse). but in high-tension arenas, the LP model quickly dissolves into semi-anarchy, with each participant expressing his opinion stridently, and where many of those opinions are attacks on others because those others are perceived to have violated the 'do no harm' guarantee. Any group that uses a CP model (and you can look at most any deliberative organization to see this - from Congresses and Parliaments to corporate boards to the UN to...) always has a set of rules in place designed to maintain order in the discussion, and always enforces them (e.g. sanctions or votes of no confidence) or ritualizes the urge to disorder (e.g. filibuster mechanisms) so that the process naturally tends to fall back towards deliberate discussion. The wikipedian decision to protect free expression at the expense of rules of correct discussion was a bad decision, politically speaking. of course, I know, rules have their own problems (we don't want to fall into a bureaucratic system), but the pure liberal model is only better by a matter of degree.

philosophical moment, sorry...

Mathsci left a note in my talk, and I am considering the best way to respond. I am still very angry, but I do want him to participate in the debate. I'll see what I can do. --Ludwigs2 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

X - responding here, so as not to clutter the ANI thread needlessly. I see your point, I apologize for my loss of perspective, and I will be careful not to snipe at Mathsci in the future. I hadn't really meant to in any case, really, but on rereading I'd agree that it came out that way despite my intentions. my bad... --Ludwigs2 04:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

I agree with your suggestion that mediation should continue for a further two weeks. After that I understand that mediation will be closed and unmediated editing recommence. This seems like a fair compromise. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Race and intelligence is an article that I have monitored for between four and five years. Ludwigs2 showed some interest in editing it about 2 months ago. As part of the mediation process, the article is being currently rewritten in mainspace. This is totally inappropriate. A new version should be written on a subpage of the mediation page and then discussed, prior to being posted . Please can you revert the article to its premediation state and ensure that a new tentative version is prepared on a subpage? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you propose it? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned to Ludwigs2 on his talk page, on January 26 I suggested that when you dropped out as mediator, mediation could not continue without a fourth mediator. I was on wikibreak then, because of teaching commitments in the UK, so stayed out of the discussion until term ended. Because of that, I do not wish to involve myself at this late stage in the fourth round of the mediation process, particularly after so many other editors have abandoned it. In a private email Slrubenstein, the only remaining long term contributor to the article, disclosed that he would be unable to comment on the article or mediation in the near future because of real life commitments. There are currently a lot of single purpose accounts involved in mediation, as opposed to mainstream editors like me. I do not like being in the minority as a mainstream editor. After my recent experience on WP:ANI, it seems clear that no matter how self-evident the suggestion about using a subpage is, it would be considered as another way of making a personal attack on Ludwigs2. I am too tired now to hear any more of those kinds of bullying suggestion. Indeed I feel that I have been hounded from the article by raising objections to the mediation process. Please could you step in as an administrator to restore a more orderly procedure that conforms to the norms of wikipedia editing? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Uuugh... We're in such a bind. If you're suspicious of Ludwigs, would you not agree that he would probably accuse me of meatpuppetry on your behalf?

Would you discuss the changes on the sub-page? What has changed your mind? What will happen when that falls through? And if you aren't going to discuss on the sub-page, what would be the point if no mainstream editors are participating anyway? It would be process for the sake of process.

This won't end nicely for anyone. Hell, the whole subject is practically a red-herring for the sake of racism and scientific racism anyway. And there's my bias, so can I revert and protect in my capacity as an administrator? I'm either protecting on your version, or failing to protect on theirs. That's what Ludwigs asked for up above. I said no to him, so what happens when I say yes to you?

Meanwhile, poor David.Kane! He's single-handedly doing all of this for everyone, only for all of that work to die because no-one will actually collaborate in any meaningful way.

It's absurd! Xavexgoem (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I share your frustration, Xavexgoem. The whole article is unsavoury to me and my involvement is just some form of damage limitation (correct use of sources). I have added my suggestion, a little insistently, and note that Aprock already made the same suggestion. Ludwigs2 replied to Aprock that it couldn't be done because of time constraints. I don't quite understand that reply. We'll have to see what he says to me. Mathsci (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What I say to you (off the mediation page) is that if you spent 1/10th of the time making constructive comments about the article that you spend raising and arguing about procedural issues, the damned thing would be a Featured Article by now. You keep trying to monkey-wrench things, Mathsci, and there's just no point to it. Contribute something productive, or leave it alone. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have written two short statements on the mediation page yesterday, the second of which you collapsed - what are you talking about Ludwigs2? Your are now making baseless personal attacks on one of the few editors at present on the mediation page with any significant experience in mainspace editing (7,200 mainspace edits and 4 1/2 years monitoring the article). What you write is utter nonsense. If you had more experience as an editor you would know that Race and intelligence can never be a GA or FA. If you look at the improperly archived talk page Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence/Archive_0, the only reasonable place to seek comments of how I have been in mediation, it seems that I made some of the most constructive suggestions during the whole period of mediation. That conflicts with the snide remarks that you have just made. The figure of 10% is just a rhetorical and WP:BAITing device pulled out of your own head, unjustified by diffs from that talk archive and the rest of the mediation pages. I cannot possibly participate in a mediation process with someone who writes dishonest things, bears grudges and enables POV-pushing by single person accounts. I will consult a member of the arbitration committee or a senior administartor now, because your editing behaviour has become so problematic. (It's very similar to what can be seen in the debate about the National Science Foundation.) I have no idea what you think you're doing. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Ludwigs2 has now been editing the article[1] to remove TechnoFaye's edits. That is an illustration of why the article should have been written on a subpage of the mediation pages. That would have been fine on a subpage but Ludwigs2 is pushing his editing privileges if he does that repeatedly in mainspace. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci: before last week, you had nothing to say on the article for a period of several months. since you began dealing with the article, you have only made procedural arguments - a thread on ANI about closing the mediation on procedural grounds, another pair of comments on the mediation page trying to move the draft to a subpage on procedural grounds (one of which was a comment about another editors' experience, which goes against the rules you explicitly agreed to when you signed onto the mediation). you have not yet contributed one single comment about the material, the topic, the article, or anything else that could help build a better article, not since I've taken on the mediation. I don't care how much experience you have, if you are not contributing, you are not contributing, and there is just no getting around that easily demonstrated fact.

I don't really want to engage the rest of your comments, which are unfortunate and unfounded. I want you to stop disrupting the article with procedural issues, and start contributing to building the article. If you would do that, you're an experienced editor who would probably go a long way to making the article a good article. If you don't want to contribute to building the article, that's fine, but then I'm going to have to ask you to stop raising procedural issues per wp:BURO. --Ludwigs2 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am writing this in upper case so that you can't exercise WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

UP UNTIL LAST WEEK I WAS AWAY FROM FRANCE TEACHING IN CAMBRIDGE DURING THE LENT TERM AND THUS WAS ON WIKIBREAK. I'M NOW BACK IN FRANCE WITH MY NORMAL EDITING PATTERNS.

Taking wikibreaks is normal when necessitated by real life commitments. Is that so hard for you to take in?

Otherwise see the comments by various editors in the thread you started on WP:ANI. Good night, Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not hard for me to take in. however, since you have returned to the page you have done nothing except raise procedural issues that gum up the page. is that hard for you to understand? --Ludwigs2 00:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem about those involved in mediation at the moment which addresses that question You should probably read what I am about to write on WP:ANI before making any further comments. Mathsci (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

your opinion, please

I whipped up a template - {{nono}} - to do inline refactoring (I needed it in the mediation to remove off-topic comments that were nested in one user's otherwise acceptable post). I want your opinion on whether such a template is acceptable, though - I'm waffling on the ethics of it. If you get a chance, could you look at the template and the review section of the mediation page, and let me know if you think I should undo it and scratch the template? thanks. --Ludwigs2 05:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm a bit undecided myself. I would only use it in extreme cases, when it's impossible to get the disputants to be civil with one another. And once you use it, you have to commit to dolling out in equal proportions (as long as it's merited, of course), lest you be perceived as playing sides. It's a tad dictatorial, and you want to avoid that when you can (I don't think this is a case where you can, though). It's at your discretion. And, of course, only use it in spaces that you control: article talk would probably be a Template:Nono Xavexgoem (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC) shouldn't it read redacted?

lol - yeah, trying to use that in any other context would pretty much get me lynched. redacted might be a better word; I chose refactored because that seems to be more in line with wiki-speak, but maybe I'll change it. it's just hard to handle posts that pepper scurrilous comments in throughout reasonable material. I'll be judicious with it, and if you come to some more definitive opinion about it let me know. --Ludwigs2 05:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

concern

Xavexgoem, I just want to draw your attention to this. I read your comment To be clear: I am not criticizing how Ludwigs2 is managing the mediation. That is why I did not take it to mediation cabal.

But I understand mediation as part of a conflict resolution process involving a conflict among specific editors. I do not think that mediation especially through the informal process of the mediation Cabal) has any authority over people who are not involved in the mediation. Tht is, I believe that participation in a mediation must be voluntary. The way I read Captain Occam and Mikemikev's serial reversions of Mustihussain is: they are insisting that one must participate in the mediation, if one wishes to edit the Race and intelligence article. And Ludwigs2 seems to be supporting this position. I see this as an abuse of authority.

Do you still think this is best approached as a mediation problem? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory

Hey Xave. I think that the editors at the CMT mediation appear to have reached a consensus. I would appreciate it if you could take a look and close out the RfM if you agree. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

IRC

X - happy to join the IRC, but I've never really used it before. I followed the advice on the Wikipedia:IRC/Tutorial and read the parent page, but... currently I'm stuck on the cloaking stage. when I try to send the cloak message - /msg MemoServ send wmfgc IRC cloak request at irc.freenode.net#wikipedia my IRC client connects to MemoServ but responds with "MemoServ: You are not logged in.", and there's nothing in the tutorial that explains what logging in means. can you assist?

I'll try to join uncloaked if that's the way of things, but I'd prefer to get it correct. --Ludwigs2 17:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a cloak in order to join. However, if you want one, then you first have to register your username (IRC, not Wikipedia) with NickServ. Typing "/msg NickServ help register" (without the quites) will give you the information you need to do that. Registration means that your nickname is reserved, and nobody else can use it. From there, you can continue with the cloaking process. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it, and thanks. --Ludwigs2 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

So the weight of opinion is to close the mediation. Well, it did much good. However, I do not think the R&I article is ready in the sense that a draft in which all major conflicts have been worked out is ready to be unveiled. Specifically, BPesta apparently wishes to add more material that I and I bet mathSci will consider dubious and frigne. That said I do not want to obstruct his adding this material, on the contrary I wish for him to add it but in an NPOV which above all means (to me) presenting it as views and not facts. Conversely, MatchSci is adding or wishes to add material BPesta and Captain Occam consider POV-pushing, although I personaly think it is needed to bring balance to the article.

I am NOT asking you to replaces Ludwigs2 as formal mediator. But I am asking - begging, actually - that, following a suggestion Ludwigs2 made on the mediation talk page, you check in regularly both to encourage BPesta AND Mathsci to add the material they are working on, and to coach them in doing so that complies fully with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I do not believe we are talking about a lot of material on either side, and I do not see why this process should take more than another few days or perhaps a week. But if we reac a point where both BPesta and Mathcsci can say "the material most important to me is in the article, and I concede that the material I find objectionble nevertheless complies with NPOV and NOR policies" then I think we will have a real criumph and an article that I think may actually (for the first time in its six or seven year history) be relatively stable. That is an accomplishment that I think would be worth it. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Note, I've closed the mediation: there wasn't a sufficient consensus to keep it open for me to argue for its continuation, and I have my fingers crossed that it's in a place where the remaining work can be handled through normal editing practices. how do you want to deal with tidying? there are some active discussions that need to be moved to article talk, and of course the talk and history merges which you have to do. let me know what you want me to do (within my limits) and what you want to do yourself. --Ludwigs2 05:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

When Ludwigs2 euphemistically says he wants to assist in "tidying", that seems to prejudge the current state of the article, i.e. that it is close to some final state. That doesn't seem to be true at all. It would probably be a good idea for him to have some kind of break from the article, particularly since he seems to have shown no interest in discussing or adding content. There's no point in him morphing himself into a sort of Miss Manners on Talk:Race and intelligence. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant tidying up the end of the mediation, not tidying the article page. And no worries, I'll contribute to the article; I couldn't effectively do that while I was mediating. funny thing is, now we get to work together, since I agree with many of the points you're trying to make. Not all of them, obviously, but there is significant overlap. is that ok with you? --Ludwigs2 06:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@Slr - I think it is time for everyone to act as a sort of mediator on that page. BPesta has shown a willingness to compromise, so I don't think that's so big an issue. A good idea is to set up drafts on the talk page over the more contentious bits. BRDing on some issues will cause frustration and suspicion.

@Ludwigs - It's impossible to merge the histories without steward help, and the templates that manage archiving are arcane and spread out over 3 templates or so (and if I do figure it out, it might break the bot). I'm likely going to create a separate archive for the mediation. Best thing to do is to copy+paste whatever discussions need wrapping up. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see to that over the next few hours. --Ludwigs2 15:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the open discussions that I know need attention over to article talk. I've left a note in talk asking if editors want any other discussions moved over, and if there's no response there after a bit I think it's done. --Ludwigs2 18:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis Creation Myth

The RFM was closed due to a editor disagreeing but has now changed their mind so can the RFM be opened again? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

When there's a long list of parties, I would think there should be three classes of input:

• Reject mediation
• Accept, as a party, and agree to participate
• Accept mediation outcome without wishing to be a party or participate

Your thoughts? Guy (Help!) 12:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Words of gratitude for the case acceptance.

Thank you for starting the work in the mediation committee on my application. In fact, it isn't a very urgent case, so we I'd wait, but I hope the issue to be solved, as similar issues in that very article are many. Regards. Aregakn (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

It has been 6 days since all parties signed this request for mediation. Could you look at it, and make decision? --BoDu (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

FYI I've posted an ANI thread about UltraBibendum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a user you were involved with back in September.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sven70

Hello. Can you help me with dealing with this? I´m willing to help, but i dont use msn or skype and don´t want to misunderstand him. THX in advance. PS: even if you are lazy... please answer ther :) --WizardOfOz (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Sven70

I've proposed a shorter sig so its more appropriate per WP:SIG but I am happy for the user to carry on with the current one, his (or hers) is a unique situation and I understand fully why it would be useful to them. SGGH ^ping! 10:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem by me one way or another. Just so long as he's not being blocked for his shorthand. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(well, caveat: /solely/ for his shorthand. If he's being really nasty, then of course that's different). Xavexgoem (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The mediation

Hello! Could you please pay attention to the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Historical map of the Roman Empire in the article "History of Georgia (country)"? The discussion is not progressing because of some reasons, Iberieli has not found time for it for almost 2 months. Aregakn (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation experience

I am thinking about helping the community and trying my hand in mediation. Do you think that Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal would be the right place for me to do that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sven70, again.

For your information, the user behind the account Sven70 on Wiktionary was permanently blocked a good while ago, and his current account has also been blocked. I understand your wish to help him, however, we all wanted to at some point as well, and it didn't get the project anywhere. The discussion relating to it this time is here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#nl4.5Bbabl.3Dimprope --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 15:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)