User talk:Josiah Rowe/Archive 7

This archive covers discussion from November and December of 2006.

Thanks...
for the notice. Haiduc 12:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks Josiah. I appreciate it! Khoikhoi 21:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The D-word
Josiah, I first want to say how impressed I am with your cool-headed, open-minded contributions to the maelstrom over on TV-NC. You are setting an excellent example in that discussion and you should be commended for it. Pursuant to that discussion, I was reading through Disambiguation just now and saw this gem, which apparently you recently restored to the page: "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page." I am intrigued by this, since it seems to represent the basic standard of disambiguation, and thus strikes at the core of the TV-NC discussion. My novice impression is that the this guideline implies its own inverse: "When there is any risk of confusion, disambiguate." That, however, seems to go against the standard policy of "Disambiguate only when necessary." I'm curious what you think about this, as you obviously have a great deal of experience with it. Please feel free to reply here; I'll keep it on my watchlist. --Toby Rush &#8249;&#8201; &#9990;|&#9997; &#8201;&#8250; 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Toby. My interpretation of the disambiguation policy is that disambiguation should do just what it says on the tin: resolve ambiguity.  To that end, if there are two articles that could have the same title, some form of disambiguation is necessary.  By contrast, if there's only one article that could have a given title, then no disambiguation is necessary.  I think this is the way out of the contradiction you're seeing.


 * The "confusion" that disambiguation hopes to avoid is confusion between articles that might otherwise share a name, not the potential confusion of readers about an article's subject. For the purposes of disambiguation, it doesn't matter whether a reader coming upon a link to All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues can tell that that's an episode of Lost.  (Ideally, of course, they would come upon such a link only in a context that would make that apparent.)  What matters for disambiguation is whether any other article could possibly have the title All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues; since, to my knowledge, there is no such other article, the general guideline would be not to disambiguate this title.


 * Does this address your concern? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, though it's not really a concern as much as a curiosity. It seems very apparent to me that this:
 * "The 'confusion' that disambiguation hopes to avoid is confusion between articles that might otherwise share a name, not the potential confusion of readers about an article's subject."
 * is the interpretation of the disambiguation principle that is universally understood on Wikipedia. I merely found it interesting that it's not stated explicitly on WP:D, and wondered if that was an intentional omission or just simply something no one has found necessary to clarify. Obviously, it could very quickly come down to debating what the meaning of "is" is, and I don't see much value in taking it anywhere close to that. :)


 * Not trying to stir anything up here (there's more than enough of that on TV-NC)... just making sure I'm clear about the original intent of the policy. --Toby Rush &#8249;&#8201; &#9990;|&#9997; &#8201;&#8250; 21:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that it's just that nobody's found it necessary to clarify that so far. That said, perhaps there's an argument for doing so now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wissahickon Creek
...was actually User:Bonaparte. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably everything in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonaparte should be added to it. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be, except that User:Gurch and others are now deleting all userpages of permanently blocked editors, so soon enough all the evidence will disappear. Apparently 4 people agreed to this in some obscure discussion on an MfD last month, so now it's policy forevermore. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forgot to mention, Gurch alone has deleted 20,000 User pages so far. Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they're using WP:DENY, they're using it incorrectly, since it explicitly says "Userpages for indefinitely blocked users (except sockpuppets and banned users) that have no practical purpose should be deleted after a short while". And there's no discussion I'm aware of WP:AN or WP:AN/I, but there probably should be. Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Roger Needham vandal
I just scanned through the user creation log for the time when the previously blocked accounts were created. You will wish to block the last one from that time -. Matches the Chinese restaurant theme too nicely to be a coincidence. Kavadi carrier 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

may you please unblock me
Please unblock me!! To tell you the truth, I was a wonderful contributor to articles in Wikipedia "Yu-Gi-OH and Pokemon". The story began when a user named Mitsumasa began creating and upload Pokemon images and articles.

After about 5 months after the start of the articles the PCP began merging the articles (A Man in Black, Ryulong, Interrobamf) i tried talking to them, and the PCP but they did'nt listen. I even tried to leave a committ on their usertalk pages but A Man in Black is the only one that responds to my committ. I gave up until recently students at my school "The Learning Community School" began bullying me, they knew that I was a contributor at the site "Wikipedia", so they told my teacher that they logged in some accounts and began vandalizing the articles that I personattly was currently having problems with you. My teacher Mrs. Lisa Mercato talked to the students Jene', Jessica, Aaron and restricted them from using the school computer.

I'm very sorry. May you please unblock me and my IP address 72.177.68.38. May you please just make it that I can create a new account. It is a total misunderstanding. If you want to talk to my teacher, please email her at lmercato@yahoo.com. The block is casuing the school not to edit Wikipedia.

Thank you, and God Bless —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yukiudaigx (talk • contribs) 14:19, November 10, 2006 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica episode names
I noticed you redirected the Resurrection Ship article to the episode by the same name and put the ship's article in another. I think all BSG episodes should be named as so; "EPISODE NAME (Battlestar Galactica)" like most of the Star Trek episodes have "EPISODE NAME ("SHOW ABV" Episode)" in their names. It might make them easier to sort out and identify and keep them consistent with each other. Just my suggestion. Cyberia23 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I see your argument - however in the case of the Trek pages - titling them as they are helps disambiguate what series the episode came from, TNG for Next Gen, TOS for The Original Series, etc. That might be a point to consider when deciding on their proper formatting. Cyberia23 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Marthajones.jpg
You said: "Hi, Yamla. You recently removed this image from the Doctor Who article, saying that it lacked the required detailed fair use rationale.  The image page does have a four-point rationale on its page — what more would be required in order to keep the image?  (I'd like to learn.)"


 * The rationale is only for Martha Jones, not Doctor Who. If a picture of this companion contributes meaningfully to the article on Doctor Who, a rationale for use there must be added.  It is not at all clear that it was contributing meaningfully to that article and the article is already quite long.  --Yamla 18:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You said: "The rationale says that she is a main character in the programme, and there's a short paragraph at Doctor Who about her. I don't really feel strongly that this particular image should be included, especially since the character has yet to appear in the series, but I do feel that it's important that an image of a companion appear in the article.  It had previously included the image Image:Rosetyler.jpg, which does have a specific rationale for Doctor Who — would that be more acceptable? [...] I agree that the article has become very long, but I don't think that removing that image was necessarily the best way to start cutting. There are far more extraneous bits."


 * To be clear, the reason I cut the image is because it was missing a rationale for that particular article. Making the article shorter was just a side-effect.  The image definitely does have a rationale, but for an entirely different article.  It's clearly valuable in that other article but not so clearly valuable in the article on Doctor Who.  With an appropriate rationale, I agree it would be appropriate to have an image of a companion.  Ideally, it should be a companion significant enough to merit at least a full paragraph discussion in Doctor Who.  Which specific companion is probably less relevant.  --Yamla 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

House episodes
Thank you for telling me about the policy on episode names! I wasn't aware of it before. I will keep it in mind for articles in the future. PullToOp ə n talk 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tainted poll?
Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh...

 * It would be funnier if it weren't done at the expense of other editors. --Elonka 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pointed at the situation, not the individual editors. Naming a participant in a debate does not equal making fun of them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you single out and name specific people, it's pointed at them. You asked me before to point out if you did anything that was uncivil or unhelpful.  I count "ridiculing other editors in the middle of a debate," as unhelpful. It contributes to an "us and them" mentality, discourages consensus building, and it encourages incivility on the part of other editors, towards the people that have been targeted.  I know that you may see it as a "one time" occurrence, but what if it gets repeated?  What if other people start the same "ridiculing" behavior, saying, "Well, Josiah made fun of that person, I can make fun of them too?" Please re-read WP:CIVIL and ask yourself whether that song helped the situation, or hurt it. --Elonka 06:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I intended to ridicule myself as much as anyone — hence the "run away" lines, which fit so well from the original song. If we can't see the absurdity in arguing so passionately over such a trivial matter, we desperately need to get a sense of perspective.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would have been too bad to mention names, if you didn't mention only one name. Next time include me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oggleboppiter (talk • contribs) 03:07, November 21, 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I will. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Awsome song. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I found that very funny, like the Hotel Wikipedia song. ( Radiant ) 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mischaracterization
For the record, no, I wasn't referring to you. If I have a problem with you, I'll tell you, I promise. :) I absolutely do not think that you added the song as a way of "filling up" the page. However, there are plenty of other posts in there from other editors, which I do think have been designed specifically to confuse and obfuscate.  Which is another reason that I'd like a clean poll. --Elonka 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war
I'm not in violation of 3RR. If you look at the edit history you'll see that yesterday I made three reverts before stopping, and then made one revert today. Although, looking at the edit history, it appears Duggy 1138 has broken 3RR. The Wookieepedian 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Si Spencer
Actually as you went there you can check out whether he is a "Torchwood person", did he write an episode or did he pull out as he isn't on the list. Tim! 10:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Explain!
I don't understand! I insired several new interlinks in the page Troy, and even so I was accused to vandalism! WHY?! DIEGO RICARDO PEREIRA 13:24 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Josiah, I understand your concern, and wish I could get a clear answer. I've been making multiple backchannel requests for a checkuser, but haven't had any response yet. A simple WP:RFCU check isn't really an option, since I don't know for sure who the alternate account is. :/   Also, though yes, the account has been around for a long time, the scope of articles edited is very narrow (for months it was almost exclusively in the Hunter x Hunter articles), the user still hasn't gone to the trouble of creating a userpage, the general demeanor is negative and confrontational, and the recent use of the account has been almost exclusively for moving articles, hundreds and hundreds of them. Also, he basically admits it himself, here:. --Elonka 07:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He did have a user page, but I guess he requested it to be deleted. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yaksha's comment on Woohookitty's talk page does seem to confirm that he's operating more than one account, but as long as he (or she) isn't using multiple accounts in the discussion, that's OK per WP:SOCK. If Yaksha has another account that's solely editing articles about Liberace or something, that's fine.  If Yaksha is also participating in the WT:TV-NC discussion under another name, that's not.  But I really don't see any evidence of that, and I don't think it helps our discussion to make accusations like that without solid evidence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Aside from a checkuser result (which is not within my control, since I've sent out three requests so far, but without reply), what would you regard as evidence? --Elonka 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ideally, it would be a checkuser result. Failing that, some specific diffs pointing towards similar wording or typographical/grammatical quirks indicating the same human being behind the ID.  And frankly, it would be useful if you had some indication of whose sockpuppet you think Yaksha is.  The vague suspicions here don't seem to add up to much, in my judgment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since you went to the trouble of asking me to try and "reduce acrimony", would you please ask the same of Yaksha? Seeing this constant stream of moved articles, is not doing anything to help calm the situation. --Elonka 08:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would you care if he's moving episode articles that don't involve Lost or have a situation where someone wants an exception? No one is asking for an exception for those articles. -- Ned Scott 09:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, for one reason, that "cautions" should be applied fairly. Josiah has asked me to modify my behavior to "reduce acrimony." To be fair, he should also ask the others who have done stress-inducing actions, such as those engaging in personal attacks, incivility, and non-consensus moves, to also modify their behavior.  If Josiah wishes to be perceived as acting in a fair and unbiased manner, he needs to be issuing these kinds of cautions evenly, and not just to the people that he personally disagrees with. --Elonka 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is doing "non-consensus moves" to my knowledge. Moves that are in line with consensus are being done however.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have asked editors who have been incivil to modify their tone in the past, and will continue to do so. Since I happen to believe that a consensus was established in support of the guideline, I don't see why Yaksha's moves are being considered "stress-inducing". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be helpful to try and look at it from a different point of view? Just as a mental exercise, to try and understand? Suppose, for example, you were in discussion in another part of Wikipedia, about some article-moves.  Just for the sake of discussion, let's say that it was about whether or not all articles about two-word mammal names (like "Arctic wolf") should be hyphenated or not.  Let's say that your stand was that they shouldn't be hyphenated, and that all existing articles should be left alone. There's an acrimonious discussion on a guideline page, then someone starts a poll, and the poll is rapidly changed over the next few days, such that people who are giving their opinions, are complaining that the poll is a mess, and other people are saying that they don't even want to participate because the discussion has gotten too confusing.  With all the twisting, a "majority" on the poll shows up as "we like hyphens", which is interpreted to mean that all two-word articles should be hyphenated.  You complain that the poll/discussion were improper, but you're attacked personally, and are told that the consensus is already made and that you're just whining.  Further, some of the people claiming "consensus" start moving hundreds of articles, while you're still protesting that there wasn't really a consensus.  Wouldn't you see the moving of those articles as somewhat stress-inducing? --Elonka 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I would. Of course, I see your analogy as flawed (for example, in the real case every person who complained during the poll has since stated their opinion clearly and unambiguously).  There are other flaws as well, but I don't want to get diverted into arguing a hypothetical case.


 * Elonka, I acknowledge that some contributors' treatment of you has not been the best example of Wikipedian civility. However, that does not change the fact that subsequent to the poll, editors have had multiple opportunities to express their opinions, and many (including, I believe, everyone who voted in the poll) has done so.  As I've tried to say before, Wikipedia guidelines are not established by polling, but by conversation; the conversation after the poll showed a clear consensus.  Four other administrators agree.


 * It's equally clear that there is no consensus to hold a new poll, and I don't feel it's necessary to push for one. However, since you are still unhappy with the situation, I do think it might be appropriate to hold some form of mediation or to proceed to ArbCom.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as I've said, I don't put much stock in the old poll, and I don't believe that we've had as full participation in the discussion as we might have, if we would have had a more structured environment for participating. Multiple people have commented to me that they'd like to participate, but they're daunted by format.  When I've told them, "Just start a new section and offer your opinion," they have found this intimidating, and I've heard more than one person say that the environment in there is very uncivil, and they have no wish to be personally attacked.   In any case, I have contacted a couple people with mediation experience to see if they'd like to come in and help, on an informal basis.  Perhaps that may help break the logjam.  If not, I agree, it may be time to proceed to more formal mediation (if we can even get everyone to agree to mediation?), or ArbCom. --Elonka 10:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Roger Needham
I was trying to prune WP:PP and came across Roger Needham. What in the world happened here?! I'm guessing Centrx actually had the office remove edits because of some terrible edit summaries. Sound about right? Otherwise, it looks silly - there's only a few edits in the system for the whole 2006 calendar year. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Disregard. I see what happened.  The one edit in the delete history leads to the place where Centrx moved the article with the bad edit summaries.  I wonder why he moved the page before deleting it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: warning vandals
I understand the general procedures regarding warning/blocking vandalism, and that IPs generally must be warned recently for the block to be appropriate. However, this IP is registered to Road Runner, a US-based cable internet provider, and per the edit history appears to be a single person (similar editing history, including 2 exact-same vandalisms separated by 12 days). Under such circumstances, I believe it's common-sense to assume they've already seen the final warning, and merely leaving another final4 makes us look impotent. Especially when the last final4 was for exactly the same vandalism that he/she has just repeated. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Striking out a line above - was mistaken about final warning timing. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, scratch the whole thing. I must need a nap - last final was for spamming (and from myself no less), so user hasn't received a final for vandalism. Suppose the actions taken were proper afterall. Carry on! --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User:One50bpm
It was ‎Martin wesik. At first it was just the Brad Pitt article with a different name put in. After a "nonsense" tag, he removed the tag and rewrote the article slightly keeping the Brad Pitt picture for a few edits and then eventually changing it to something else. I put a "bio" tag on it which he removed two or three more times. IrishGuy talk 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Then may I respectfully request that you consider changing the wording to what I have suggested? Or if you disagree, move it to a separate section. --Elonka 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your desire to follow the rules. And I also appreciate that you took the time to pull together the Mediation request.  However, I wish that you would have taken a bit more time with it, and perhaps checked wording.  I was working on a Medcab request, myself, which is what had been recommended to me, and then the next thing I saw, you said we should use formal mediation, and then a few minutes later we have a complete mediation request, with wording that I'm not particularly happy with, and a dozen people signing on within minutes.  Can we please try to take a bit more time with these things?  This kind of rapid-fire reaction stuff is part of the reason we got into this mess in the first place, when the poll was being rapidly changed in mid-stream. :/  I'm not trying to bust your chops about this, since I really do appreciate the work that you did.  But please, as I've been saying all along, can we get agreement on things before making major steps? --Elonka 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I went ahead and moved the issue on a recent edit (as I was adding names). I assume that I'm allowed to add names to the list?  --Elonka 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we need mediation on how to set up the mediation? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I smell arbcom. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I started a bonfire hmm wait is there anything bigger then a bonfire? A towering inferno perhaps?! --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  07:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * HAHAH that was playing on my iPod as I read it! Awesome! --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  07:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Med.
No, I do not have a problem with it. However I am woeful to agree at present as I do not know who will mediate, which slightly worries me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation (another section)
Will, I think that we should all stop editing Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) — continuing the edit war over how to describe Radiant's involvement will decrease the request's chances of acceptance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I esp. don't think Radiant's name should be removed when he put it there.  The chaos there can't possibly be how that's supposed to work, is it?!  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's more or less my perspective as well. I agree that Radiant's name should be left there, but I'm concerned that reverting Elonka's changes will further diminish the chances of the RfM being accepted.  If we can get all participants to agree to mediation and get the case accepted, we can work out our differences in the mediation process.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. But if Radiant's name is removed again, I think the page should be protected.  It's been removed twice - once after he added it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that if the participants have to resort to page protection on the RfM, there's a good chance that the mediation isn't going to work. I've asked Elonka to stop editing the page, and I've asked several MedCom members to take a look at the RfM to see if it can be salvaged.  Let's hope for the best. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's such a God awful mess now that it should probably just be re-started - with only one person editing the damn thing. Absurd.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we allowed to do that? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No clue. But apparently there are too many people involved to let anyone do anything.  I say you should get in there, get it the way you want and tell everyone (including me) to stay the hell out.  At least until a mediator shows up.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just concerned that if I go in there and start reverting changes, it'll just escalate the matter further. I bollixed this up, didn't I? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how picky they're going to be. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

<--
 * There has been a request to unprotect this page, I have declined the editors request asking them to contact mediators first. If you would like it unprotected drop a note on my talk page. Gnangarra 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From MedCom
The best advice I can give, considering the situation is to try and not get involved in the edit war. If there is an edit war on the mediation request itself, I am doubtful that mediation can continue. The best course of action would be to not get any more heavily involved. - ^ demon [omg plz] 19:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't personally see mediation as having failed. While I do see disagreement with what's going on, I don't see any bad-faith edits that would prevent mediation from being properly resolved. As it stands, I am going to get a page protection placed on the mediation request page itself, and allow participants to discuss what excactly mediation itself will be about on the talk page. - ^ demon [omg plz] 20:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I see that you've gotten some advice from other members of the Mediation Committee, but I'll go ahead and chip in my two cents here, though after reading your note I've only briefly glanced over the situation and haven't examined it in detail yet. In general, an edit war (always bad) should not be taking place on a request for mediation: each party should get the chance to explain their positions and views, and state what their view of the conflict is. There's no "official" list of topics to mediate page; instead, once (and if) a mediator takes the case, then s/he should carefully examine all sides of the issue, look at what each person says needs to be examined, and metaphorically speaking, chart the course from there. In the meantime, remember that an edit war on a mediation page accomplishes nothing, and that open communication, instead, should be pursued. Thanks, and let me know if you have any other questions. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The "list of issues" on the mediation page isn't "official", per se; it's there simply for the convenience of both the parties and the mediator and to facilitate the process. From my brief glance at the page, I really don't see a reason why there should be edit warring over this: if there is conflict over whether or not a person (Radiant!, from my cursory glances) is involved, then everyone should simply state their views on the conflict and make a note of that on the page for the mediator, and s/he will attempt to mediate the issue. If someone is listed as a party, then that party always has the right to not participate, and after listening to the comments of everyone else involved, the mediator and the involved parties should decide whether or not to proceed - if the person is a crucial part of the conflict and plays a key role in the issues being mediated, then the mediation would not proceed. As for the page being protected - if the edit warring stops and productive conversation ensues, protection shouldn't be necessary, though I would strongly advised against involved parties unprotecting the page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI
See here - IP has been blocked 31 hours :) Glen  11:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem :) (and some people is right!) Glen  18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher's comment
No objection to adding a link. As far as I'm concerned, everyone involved in the discussion should read it. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalek FAR
I don't really like the idea myself, but I don't see any real harm in it - it's just trading one type of cite for another, and if it'll stop the griping, why not? Yell if you need help; I'm at work at the moment and don't really have the time, but I'll chip in later if needed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?
I'm sorry, Josiah, but how do you expect people to respond when she says stuff like that? What she's saying is false, misleading, manipulative and disruptive. And yet you get mad at me? Is it alright to do what she's doing, simply because she's saying it with a smile? Have you even seen her recent comments about me? I've been spat on and I respond with "I'm not going to play your game" and I'm the uncivil one? -- Ned Scott 08:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Responded at User talk:Ned Scott. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's post to WP:ANI
In line with what you said at WP:RM, you might want to weigh in at WP:ANI, Elonka's latest attempt to find an admin to take her side. –  Anþony  talk  08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read her claim about "editors" going through "multiple iterations"? Even though she admitted that only one guy made one edit and then asked that one guy if he was alone in the decision, she still repeated the original claim at ANI.  Between such blatant lies and her using her own family tree as a reference (which previously resulted in Jimbo himself removing tons of info from one of her articles), I'm dangerously close to filing an RFC.  Sorry, I know I had planned to stay away from this firestorm - and I still don't plan on cooperating at the RFM if it continues to be such a sham - but I can't in good conscience let these things slide much longer.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WK, may I point out that the article that Jimbo edited, was not one of mine? I'm in complete agreement that it was very poorly sourced, and that "personal interviews" are not appropriate as references. Please don't go blaming me for the actions of some other editor. --Elonka 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw a small part of that: you did not edit the article that Jimbo edited. But you did add your site as a reference to all eight of the articles which I listed on your talk page (at a minimum), all of which now need to be re-evaluated because of the original research concerns.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

NPA
Josiah, some of your recent posts imply a certain level of frustration. May I gently suggest that it's probably not helpful to generate personal comments at other editors in an edit summary, nor to refer to other editors as being "obtuse" or "outrageous"? . I won't bother subst-ing civil0 or npa, but please, it might be best to review policies, take a step back, take a deep breath, and perhaps have a cup of tea? I'd truly like to see all stress-inducing actions stop (from page moves to name-calling), so that we can proceed with the mediation, in as polite and civil a manner as possible. I'd really very much like to avoid ArbCom, or any other actions which might cause the mediation to be rejected. --Elonka 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Third-party observations left at User_talk:Elonka. -- LeflymanTalk 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Leflyman. I refer any readers to the discussion on Elonka's talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, Josiah. Even though I've slowed my Wikipedia contributions and am attempting to disengage from such discussions, I had to jump in: it was just too wildly off the mark to chastise you for supposedly not following policy (of which I consider you to be a paragon of Wikipedia virtues). -- LeflymanTalk 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen
I'm just tired of fighting it out with the FU nazis. They're going to argue that the screenshot is in violation of fair use because it doesn't illustrate the breakfast programme and that the article doesn't discuss the content of the show (Sladen notwithstanding). Been through this with Tracy Ann Oberman before. If you want to pick up that gauntlet, be my guest. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wire proposed moves
That "standard" you mentioned is in dispute right now and has been in the mediation process for some time now. One big part of the dispute is which exceptions are to be allowed, and a specific exception mentioned on the mediation page is the case where the majority of the episodes would require a disambig page. This show, and many if not most of the shows on the hit list, was proposed fopr a move WHILE THE SPECIFIC POLICY IS IN MEDIATION and BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE MEDIATION. This is a clear violation of Wp:point and renders the proposal to be a bad faith nomination. The people proposing moves for show after show after show need to cease and desist until the matter is settled.JeffStickney 08:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:JeffStickney. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The guideline isn't in dispute - there was a dispute tag up for a time, but it wasn't added by consensus and has since been removed. There are a small number of individuals who disagree with it, but that's not reason to ignore the guideline.  Also, it is not in mediation - mediation has been proposed, but not accepted.  I consider the matter settled and mediation unnecessary, although I'm open to compromise proposals.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Runaway Bride image
Hi there, have put an image up on the Runaway Bride, a promo shot, perhaps you could have a look to make sure its ok for copyright as you seem to be pretty goos at these things. Ta muchly, .rob77

Hiya, Someone has put a load of screen grabs from the trailer up on OG, on http://www.gallifreyone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107567- maybe you could put up a nice one with both the Doctor and Donna being shown!? Ta muchly! .rob77

Hi Josiah, I've uploads a file at Ofc-03.jpg but haven't linked it yet- maybe you could do the copyright stuff to make sure it isn't wiped!

Cheers Josiah, Will keep an eye on it! rob77

WP:MEDCOM
Josiah, I just posted a notice to the NC page, about the WP:ANI thread. Since ^demon has issued a formal statement from MEDCOM, stating that there is not consensus, and that page moves are being disruptive to the mediation process, will you please join me in declaring a complete moratorium on all moves, by either side? I think it is the best way to help de-escalate the situation at this time. I know that you have the respect of many people in the "move immediately" crowd, and anything that you could do to help de-fuse the situation would have a great deal of influence.

I truly want to try and find a way that we can work through this dispute in a civil manner. If you and I, as two of the evident informal "leaders" in this dispute, can agree to act with integrity and mutual respect, I think it'll go a long way towards influencing the other individuals in the discussion. Will you please join me? --Elonka 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're asking him to de-escalate a situation that you just escalated? That's some odd "leader"ship tactics.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Queen of the Night and Iolanthe
Hi. I see that you added a note to both the Iolanthe and The Magic Flute pages way back in November 2005 to the effect that there is a reminiscence of "the Queen of the Night's aria" (?which one?) in the music for the Queen of the Fairies. This was removed from the Iolanthe page on 4 April of this year, and today I've also removed it from the Flute page - see its Talk Page. Do you remember where you got this information from?

Feel free to reinstate it if you have any evidence, but neither I nor the Iolanthe experts can discern any musical resemblance. Best. --GuillaumeTell 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Moves
Josiah, thank you for your courteous response. It's my hope that if we can continue to treat each other with civility, we may be able to find a way out of this mess. :)

In terms of just defining what the different positions are, the way I see it, things break down more or less like this:


 * There's an "NC Gang" of editors who are adamantly against any kind of compromise, against mediation, and against running a new poll. They refuse to negotiate in good faith, they escalate the matter with incivility and non-consensus moves, and in a few cases are making the dispute very very personal, by generating personal attacks and incivility, creating or supporting revenge AfD nominations, or stalking other users' contributions.  This group seems to be comprised of:


 * Wknight94, Ned Scott, Ace Class Shadow, Yaksha, Milo H Minderbinder, Serge Issakov, Jay32183, BlueSquadronRaven


 * The "WP:DAB" crowd. This group feels strongly that disambiguation guidelines should be followed.  They're not (as) militant about it, but, through either unawareness of the unethical tactics by the above group, or quiet acceptance of it, they seem to be allied with the gang:


 * Anþony, Brian Olsen, you, Chuq, Radiant!, Nohat, Shannernanner, Wikipedical


 * Then on the other side, we've got the "Let the WikiProjects decide" group:
 * Myself, MatthewFenton, Riverbend, Argash, EnsRedShirt, PeregrineFisher, Huntster, TobyRush, JeffStickney


 * The "disagree with dab, but will go along with seeming consensus" group. These names particularly sadden me, because I saw them pop into the conversation, state their objections, and then they were rapidly overwhelmed by the "NC gang", who intimidated them right out of the conversation by making them feel that they were lone voices:
 * Tango, Cburnett


 * The "we're disgusted with this conversation" group. They don't seem to have a clear stance on the disambiguation issue, but they've popped in to say that the situation is a mess, and they recommend a poll:


 * PKtm, Oggleboppiter, Englishrose

In short, when I look at the above groupings, what it tells me is that:


 * about 16 editors feel strongly that WP:DAB should be strictly followed, with about half of that number feeling so strongly about it that they want to push through thousands of page moves to "enforce" it immediately.


 * About 8 editors strongly desire some degree of WikiProject autonomy


 * Another 8 or so editors fall into varying camps of either disagreeing with DAB but not caring about it that much, or wanting everyone to try and find a different way of dealing with the situation.

A few other editors, such as at the Village Pump, have agreed with WikiProject autonomy, but are too daunted by the NC-TV chaos to want to wade in and specifically participate in the debate.

I may have missed a few names here, but I think the general breakdown is more or less accurate. And no, I'm not providing this list so that we can whip out our calculators and try to determine supermajority percentage -- I'm providing it to indicate that this is not just a "me and Matthew" thing. We may be two of the more vocal people in this discussion, but we're not alone.

What I would like to see at this point is:
 * A moratorium on moves (would a 30-day ceasefire be too much to ask?), to reduce the sense of urgency that's just escalating tension. There seems to be a sense from the NC Gang that if they can just get the moves pushed through, that the problem will go away, but that's not the case.  The more moves that are forced through, the more complaints that are going to be generated, and the more that this situation is going to escalate.


 * Trying again at Mediation, perhaps through MedCab


 * Running a survey. I think we're really really close to agreed-upon wording, and I really strongly think that a poll would help clarify the issue. Honestly, when I'm talking to other people about this, the most common response I get is, "Too complex, I don't know where to post."

I've been talking backchannel to some ArbCom reps, and they're telling me that the reason we're not getting any response at ANI, is because the issue is so complex. They're neither encouraging nor discouraging me from filing the ArbCom case, but the word "complex" keeps coming up, over and over. So if nothing else, I think the best way that we could proceed at this point, is to talk about how to simplify this matter. It is my opinion that further moves are complicating things (and escalating tension by increasing the sense of urgency). Please, can we take a step back, stop making rapid changes, and talk about this? --Elonka 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we've been talking about this for over a month, and neither side is making much headway vis-a-vis convincing the other. I know that you feel things are being rushed, but other participants feel like there's been more than adequate time for discussion and debate, and would almost certainly regard a moratorium as "delay tactics".


 * Similarly, since we weren't able even to keep from edit warring on the RfM page in the formal mediation, I don't know that informal mediation (without the agreement of key parties) would be at all useful.


 * I should note here, Elonka, that your list of participants appears somewhat distorted: on "your" side, you include editors like EnsRedShirt and PeregrineFisher who have made their opinions known but have not participated actively in the discussion, but on the "DAB" side you exclude editors like Khaosworks, Fru1tbat, ThuranX, Izhmal, Percy Snoodle, Ac1983fan, AnemoneProjectors and many, many others who have been equally clear and have participated roughly as much as EnsRedShirt. I also question whether the "disagree with dab, but will go along with consensus" group has dropped out of the conversation because they were intimidated, or because they just didn't care that much about it.  Unless you ask them, we can't know, and it's not really appropriate to characterize them either way.


 * As for running another poll, in the past I've been willing to support that in the interest of ending this poisonous debate. However, several editors have objected vigorously to the notion of another poll, and given that these objections are part of the environment, I don't think another poll would be regarded as legitimate.


 * But I wonder, if we've got RM surveys going on at the same time, couldn't they be regarded as proxies for the TV-NC debate? Unless there are specific arguments which would apply to a particular television series and not to others, the arguments are going to be the same each time.  Radiant! pointed out on many occasions that Wikipedia guidelines are not generally decided by polling, but by conversation and practice.  A series of requested move polls could show exactly that: what is the general opinion on this subject, and what is the general Wikipedia practice.  Perhaps we could agree that the outcome of a series of RM polls — including an RM on the Buffy and Star Trek examples, which are bound to gain more involvement than Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles episodes — could be treated as a measure of the Wikipedia-wide opinion on the issue?  That way, we could avoid another poll but also allow room for everyone to air their views.  If you agree, I'll ask Yaksha not to make any more moves outside of RM, and we can work together to proceed in an orderly fashion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A completely different page move issue
I've come across another page move situation, and I'd like to get an outside person to take a look and make sure I'm handling it appropriately. I have come across a situation where a user is using copy/paste to switch an article and redirect instead of actually moving either page. I've warned him/her and reverted, but they did it again. Any recommendations on how to handle this? I assume you're not supposed to do moves that way, although Help:Moving a page doesn't explicitly say you shouldn't. Moves are here:. Could you take a look? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, I wasn't expecting someone else to jump in so quick. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I have submitted a Request for Arbitration for the TV-episode naming conventions dispute at Requests_for_arbitration. As one of the involved parties, could you please come and take a look and submit your statement? Thanks, -- `/aksha 12:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

House
Well I hope the people changing my edite get the same warning. The name of the show is House. All official media refer to it as such. Because there is extraneous text on the screen does not mean it is part of the title. --User:Billywhack 10:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair dealing
To a degree, yes, fair dealing in the UK seems to be more restrictive. It's governed by sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. While fair dealing is allowed for private study, research, criticism or review (given sufficient acknowledgement) I'm not sure that an encyclopedia article comes under the definition of criticism or review (particularly since NPOV requires no real criticism).

Fair use in the US, on the other hand, is governed by 17 U.S.C. § 107, which is an inclusive criteria allowing the courts to look at fair use on a case-by-case basis, calculative various factors, rather than defining strict categories of fair use. The leading case analyzing fair use the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But note that it's "for private or domestic use", which is not what Wikipedia is. In the case of Elisabeth Sladen, they're basing it on the criteria in tv-screenshot which states: "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents". The argument being that the screenshot must be in an article about the program, and not the person in the picture. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers...
to my questions at WT:TV-NC, in the interest of, as some have suggested, maintaining some point where those new to the discussion can get an idea of the situation. Of course, as you may have noticed, most of my questions were in fact rhetorical, in order to give certain others an indication of what a monstrous uphill battle they face trying to get their point of view anywhere near accepted. -- BlueSquadron Raven  22:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reconsider
Okay, per Jimbo's comment I've reconsidered this. See here. Since you brought this up I'd like your opinion on how to proceed from here, as the situation is at least midly confusing. Yours, ( Radiant ) 00:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the NC, you are correct in that I would recuse from such. Thanks for your other remarks; I'll write a short paragraph about it. ( Radiant ) 12:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for reverting my vandalized user page today. -Douglas Whitaker 07:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Discussion" section generated by bot
Hi, Dan. I received a notice from your bot about the cleanup needed on American English. I was going to ask a question on the talk page, but when I clicked on the edit button next to the word "Discussion", it took me to an edit page for Template:PockKleanBotCleanup. If I had made my comment about the American English article there, I think it would have been transcluded onto all the other pages which carry this template.

I've subst'ed the template at Talk:American English, which solves the problem in that case, but it might be good if you altered your bot so that it automatically substs the template on talk pages. I think a lot of users would have the same instinct that I did. Thanks for making the bot, though — seems like a very good idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, my apologies - this is a case of my not thinking straight, The bot was only introduced yesterday on a few pages as a test to catch this kind of problem. I shall dot hat straightaway. Many Thanks! - PocklingtonDan 07:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise request
Well, then, since you are a party to the case in ARBCOM, then you are free to use my findings. I had (sadly) believed Elonka until I found the poll's supposed flaws were dealt with. Wiki e Zach|  talk  04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
For. Would you believe I doublechecked all that too? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

NPA
Josiah? "pulling an Elonka", "Matthew's snide asides"? . I mean, I appreciate that you're trying to cool down some of the rhetoric, but do you think you could do it without throwing in even more attacks into the mix? --Elonka 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm quite fed up with this ongoing "them against us" kind of rhetoric and this blatant personally-oriented disrespect, Josiah, and have indicated that on the talk page of the arbitration. Again, this subject has come to be about civility, much more than about disambiguation. -- PKtm 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet again, it's clear from the context that what Josiah wrote was not a "personal attack": "I don't want to pull an Elonka on you, but..." -- obviously refers to Elonka's historic (and self-avowed) predilection for "distributing civility and NPA warnings on the spot." And yes, Matthew has been repeatedly snide in his remarks, yet rather unsurprisingly hasn't warranted a single similar "NPA warning" from Elonka, or even a mild rebuke-- 'cause obviously he's been her sole stalwart supporter in the TV-NC debate. And if one desires to claim that as a "personal attack", please be my guest.-- LeflymanTalk 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now, Matthew is refusing to even get other editors' names right. Is that "civil"?  If he is going to engage in snide behaviour, I don't see anything uncivil about pointing it out.  Elonka, do you really think his actions are worth defending?  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, how would you feel if I were to post something like, "Oh, he did a revenge-AfD, he was pulling a Leflyman," "Oh, he's just being hypocritical, he's pulling a Josiah," "Oh, he's just sniping again, he's pulling a Milo." It is NOT CIVIL. Please try to adopt a better standard of behavior, and treat others the way that you would like to be treated. Before using someone's name in a post, especially for a negative comment, think to yourself, "How would it feel if they said this exact same thing about me?" If it would make you angry, then it's probably better to not say it. As for my conversations with Matthew, I talk to him every day in IMs, so you have no idea what I do or don't tell him. In fact, I've been talking with several people in this dispute, who are in support of the "Let the WikiProjects decide" argument, but don't want to participate in the discussion because of how toxic it has become. If you'll look at the NC page, you'll see that nearly every time anybody speaks up in opposition, they are immediately challenged. This is not the way to hold a civil discussion. If Matthew and I are the most vocal, it's probably because we've got the thickest skins, and have been able to withstand the steady stream of abuse. But regardless of what behavior you ascribe to him or to me, it does not excuse incivility on your part. Please stop it. --Elonka 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm not sure if anyone can take a NPA or civil note from Elonka, PKtm, or Matthew seriously. If his comment about your behavior makes you look bad, maybe that's because your behavior is making you look bad. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have observed this technique before in emotional debates: marginalize and trivialize the opposition by stating almost as a given that nothing they say can possibly have any merit whatsoever. Again, the above comment is promoting a "them vs. us" attitude, and part of the charter of any admin should be to work actively to defuse it. That is clearly not happening here. -- PKtm 07:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Except it's not being used as a technique here.. this is what I (and others) honestly think. I do agree that we should discourage the whole "us vs them" mindset, but you might want to talk to someone else first. I do stand by my comment, in that you cannot be mad at Josiah if your own actions make you look bad. If someone coined a phrase "pulled a Ned" then I should be mad at myself, not them. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate
Hi Josiah. It's the "Privacy of birthdays" section of WP:LIVING. If the anon is Eddie himself or a friend with permission, that's fine but we'd need to know that. (Whether the ability to look up a birth certificate counts for the separate verifiability criteria is a different issue!) &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI...
...re: this edit, Leflyman is not an admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't been following that arb case, but I am astounded at the sheer amount of material I now found there. I note that Elonka's evidence (and not just the part about me) contains numerous statements that are misleading or downright false. Of course, the argumentation that WP:C may not be edited now is absurd; by that "logic", we should revert her recent edit to Mediation because she's involved in an ongoing mediation case. At any rate, I would prefer to stay out of this case, so I would appreciate a rebuttal of her arguments. Also, for principles and remedies and such, this page may be a useful reference. ( Radiant ) 12:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RfAr
Josiah, a lot of claims of "false statements" are being thrown around at the RfAr, and a whole lot of personal attacks. In regards what you said about the mediation in particular though, I would ask you to please take a closer look at what you are claiming. In your statement, you say, "The fact that the mediation was rejected as a result of her edit warring on the RfM page." But, according to ^demon, the Mediation was rejected because of key parties refusing to agree to mediation. He also said that the edits that were made to the Mediation page itself, did not appear to be bad faith. Rather than me posting an extensive rebuttal though, I thought I'd just bring this up to you directly to see if you wanted to reconsider that part of your statement. --Elonka 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The mediation was rejected by the invoved parties. I rejected it because of Elonka's actions, which demonstrated bad faith and an unwillingness to negociate, and I believe at least some of the others rejected for the same reason.  See Requests for mediation/Common Reasons for Rejection  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have adjusted the sentence for greater accuracy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Josiah, I ask you in all good faith sincerity, do you truly believe that the main reason that the mediation was rejected, was because I removed Radiant's name from that one section? From my point of view, it seemed that the major reason for the rejection was Yaksha's ignoring of ^demon's request to stop moving pages, plus Yaksha (and several others) refusing to agree to mediation. The editing of the page (and please remember, no one can edit war by themselves) did not seem to play any factor. I am asking you this in good faith, because I honestly see you as one of the more reasonable individuals in this dispute. As such I ask you to please give more thought to what you are saying in the case, especially the tone that you are using. And no, I'm not asking this because any diffs you offer may reflect poorly on me -- I'm already being attacked every which way in there, so your comments aren't particularly saying anything new.  But please be aware that because you are an administrator, those who are watching the case are going to be paying more attention to what you say, and how you say it.  You will be drawing greater scrutiny. As such, I encourage you to be as neutral and factual as you can. In other words, just because others are posting emotional messages, does not mean that you should.  I encourage you to act with integrity, and set a high standard of behavior. --Elonka 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, with the insinuation that Josiah is not acting with integrity? It's quite clear to anyone who looks at the Request for mediation page that six involved parties, all of whom had issues with Elonka, changed their agreement to mediate. On November 30, Wknight and Ned Scott had already expressed their frustration, and stated their intention to take throw in the towel-- which they did, as soon as the RfM page was unprotected on December 4. Milo stated his reasons soon after: "Disagree - given the disruption and bad faith Elonka has shown..." -- which both Serge and Yaksha cited as their reasons, as well. As the notice on the page points out, "If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected." (emphasis mine). And why was the page locked on November 28? Because (as noted by admin Geni) there was edit warring going on-- for which Elonka was principally held responsible. I count 12 edits to the page made by Elonka, including modifying and removing other user's comments, before she even agreed to the mediation, at which point the RfM was already dead in the water.-- LeflymanTalk 02:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My perspective on the failure of mediation
I don't think we really need to get into this in the arbitration, so I'll state it here. I think that there was a course of events, each of which led to the next, resulting in the failure of the arbitration. In rough chronological order:
 * 1) I file the mediation request, and most of the editors involved in the debate sign on quite quickly.
 * 2) While other disputants are agreeing to mediation, Elonka initiates an edit war about Radiant's role in the dispute. (Elonka is correct that "no one can edit war by themselves", but when three different people make an edit, and one person persistently removes it, it is clear that the one bears more responsibility for the edit war than the three.)
 * 3) Because of the edit war, the RfM page is locked.
 * 4) While it is locked, the discussion from WT:TV-NC moves to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and other locations. Some positive contributions are made at this point, in particular those of Riverbend and TobyRush.
 * 5) Ace Class Shadow removes the "disputed" tag from the guideline; Elonka restores it . This provokes another edit war, over whether to characterize the guideline as "disputed" or not.  Good-faith arguments are made on both sides, since the core of the argument is about whether consensus has already been reached.
 * 6) During this debate, Elonka uses the existence of the mediation request as justification for the addition of the "disputed" tag.
 * 7) While the RfM page is protected, some editors who believe that the guideline had already gained consensus (in particular Yaksha) continue to move pages. This is based on Yaksha's interpretation of the guideline as having widespread support.
 * 8) Elonka is upset by this, and asks Yaksha to stop the moves.
 * 9) Yaksha declines.
 * 10) Elonka then requests a block at AN/I, characterizing Yaksha's moves as "bad faith".
 * 11) Other parties object to this request, and to Elonka's use of the mediation request as a justification for the "disputed" tag.
 * 12) In the light of the "dispute over 'disputed' " and the block request, several editors express their frustration with Elonka's actions, and decide to cancel their agreement to the mediation.
 * 13) Because not all editors agreed to mediation, the mediation request is denied.

There is a chain of causation here: Yaksha had agreed to the mediation, and probably would not have proceeded with the page moves if it looked as if mediation were going forward. Mediation would probably have gone forward if the page had not been protected. The page would not have been protected if Elonka had not objected so assiduously to the characterization of Radiant as an informal mediator. So it is fair to say that the edit warring on the RfM page led indirectly to the request being rejected.

Looking back, I believe that November 28-29 was the last chance this dispute had of being settled through mediation. Nearly everyone signed on to the mediation request very quickly. (See here and here.) I believe that if Elonka and Matthew Fenton had signed on to the mediation at that point, it might have worked. But the protection of the page stalled the progress, and the limited goodwill and willingness to work together to find a common solution evaporated over the next several days. Without an active and effective mediation process, any action or inaction was bound to cause resentment. (Page moves were seen by Elonka as bad faith violations of the mediation process; the lack of page moves would have been interpreted by Yaksha and Wknight94 as yielding to Elonka's obstructionism.) If we had been able to proceed to mediation, the mediator might have been able to set some ground rules about page moves during the mediation that might have been respected by all; however, by the time ^demon expressed his opinion, several editors had already given up on the mediation process. It was too late. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification for arbitration
From my talk page: My reading of your comment then and now was that you were saying that it would be overkill to make redirect creation a requirement.

Sorry for the delay - but your reading of my intent is correct. It is a mischaracterization to say I disagreed about the "broad consensus". Certainly, there was consensus to document the practice of using redirects. I only sought to voice that it not be a strict requirement. If this is a critical point in the case, I will repeat this on the Arb evidence page, just let me know. -- Netoholic @ 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

New diff that may fit in your evidence...
. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's list of editors
Since evidence headings are supposed to be in the form of assertions, perhaps Elonka's list of editors should be something like Elonka's list of editors is misleading? --Serge 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right — I'd forgotten that. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok
I'll go write something then, thanks. ( Radiant ) 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Need your input
Josiah, you are one of the most objective and even-minded editors I've encountered, and so I request your input on the recent RM decision at Talk:Bath, Somerset. I know I'm biased (I was the nominator), but trust you to give an objective evaluation of the outcome. In particular, see the post move discussion. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! --Serge 17:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Feeling stalked? ;D
. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian Levine
Hi Josiah- I'm a touch concerned about the entry on Ian Levine's bio about his comparison to the Abzorbaloff thing. Even if critics have speculated about it- is this really needed on a biographical page? Rob 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, and if it were just fan sources, I'd agree, but I think that the mention in the Guardian article about Take That makes it pass the test at WP:BLP — just.  However, I agree that it's a marginal case, and if you want to raise it at Talk:Ian Levine I'll support whatever consensus is reached there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it make any difference that the article which you refer to does not attribute these remarks to anyone but "critics"- the very fact that it is possible to leave remarks in from a source that doesn't itself reference its sources makes the whole thing a bit of a joke. Rob 20:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Eelh... Oops
In my moving frenzy yesterday ( IanManka (talk· contribs· [ blocks ]· [ protects ]· [ deletions ]· [ moves ]) ), I really was not paying too much attention to the other discussion about the page. In hindsight, I probably should have waited a few extra days, like proposed, but at a count of 13-0, I really didn't consider the holidays keeping a few users back to be a significant factor which would ruin consensus (if that made any sense). In my opinion, general naming policies takes precedence over any guidelines established by a WikiProject (see also WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages for similar moves, and for further reasoning). If this does become a problem, please contact me at my talk page, and inform me of the situation, and I'll attempt to clean up my mess. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr Who Monsters/Aliens
Apoligies for getting cross, it's just some people really don't take notice of what I write. They don't reply so I was rather disappointed and felt the need to express my views in a stronger way. Do you have any opinions on the Dr Who Monsters/Aliens article? If so please reply.
 * Xdt 01:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, if there's any other ideas you have feel free to tell me.

Episode List

 * On the list of episodes page I've added the comment about someone has added on new episode titles that have no details at confirmation. I've spotted that you have been contributing a large ammount to the page and thought by adding the message to your talk page something would be done quicker before new articles are made. I think they should be deleted, what do you think?


 * Okay, I just thought "Daleks in Manhattan" was an unusual episode title, and was a bit too revealing...


 * I shall deffinetely be looking forward to the new series. I'll probably spend the next few weeks searching forums for spoilers. I have some good information, seems to be more revealing this year. If the Daleks are in these episodes then I would like to wonder what is in the series finale.