User talk:Arthur Rubin/Nuclear dispute

I thank you for taking this good faith effort first of all. Of course I think the wording needs a slight change, where you oppose your point (1) I clearly oppose mine as well. If your is to be worded in a sense that you do not agree, I only ask mine be as well. As for point (4), can you please show me these. From what I have seen the clerk has comments on all of them. Look forward to your replies. Thank you. As for point (2) Lovelight asked me to work on it, or to move it. I choose to move it. I guess we can get into specifics with the mediator as to why each of us feel its ready or not.

I also think, we should add one about "using Arbcom rulings as a weapon", I am sure we can come up with a more neutral wording however. --Nuclear Zer0 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was planning on removing the comments from the "loci of dispute", and moving them to a discussion section. I/we need to work on neutral (or at least identifying POV) wording on many of the loci.
 * As I intended to say on your talk page (I was in the process of heading off to work, and may not have saved the final edit), once we agree on the loci of dispute, we need to determine which could be subject to mediation, which would require adding additional editors (Bov, Lovelight, Webucation (?)), etc.. I'm trying to avoid the failed mediation involving User:Fyslee and User:Ilena, which (IMHO) failed becauswe the parties and the clerk couldn't agree on the locus of dispute.  I don't want that to happen here.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think in all honesty we should leave Lovelight directly out of this as well as Webucation. We can address the issue of your point (1.2) regarding the template without them being involved, we do have dif's to support ourselves. I am not sure who Webucation is, nor had much interaction with bov. Also when you get a chance as requested above, I would like to see the arbcom enforcement difs. I believe all were responded to be the clerk. Also as noted above I believe that other item should be added. I believe I had something more so I do not think we should move it yet. I also think we should not involve outside editors, I think a 1 on 1 would be better then involving possibly bias outside editors into the mediation, noone should feel ganged up on, which could possibly happen if Lovelight is asked to join in, or bov, or a 3rd party like Tom or Guy. As for the loci, I am willing to let you bring any issues you feel are relevant, much like I will bring mine. I think leaving what the issue is, is part of the mediators job, to find the actual root and address it. --Nuclear Zer0 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK; I don't think the other editors need be involved. However, the mediation request mentioned above was refused by User:Fyslee (at least, according to him) because Ilena and/or the clerk reduced the locus of disagreement to one article.  I'm afraid I'll have to get back to this later.  Taxes call. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)