User talk:Squiggleslash/2

Previous messages on this page have been archived at User talk:Squiggleslash/1 (Jan 17th, 2007.)

To ask a question or leave a comment, please use the "+" symbol above. Notes:


 * I don't do the fragmented message thing, please continue any conversations already in progress on the original Talk: page they started on
 * I have limited editing functionality due to network problems between Earthlink DSL and Wikipedia when I'm at home. Please be brief as that improves the chances of me being able to reply to you quickly.
 * Comments about specific articles should be made to those article's Talk: pages except in exceptional circumstances.
 * Abusive use of this page will not be tolerated. If I've specifically asked you to stop using this page, it is almost certainly because your use has been abusive, and I will assume continued abuse is intended as deliberate harassment.

Alltell
Alltell is Major Network I am reverting then I am going to request admin intervention. Jdchamp31 (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alltel is not one of the big four. Sorry. This has been discussed to death on the talk: page. Squiggleslash (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting and as I said it is time to get a delibrator in to discuss this issue and make a decision. You have no more control over this matter than I do Jdchamp31 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Will you PLEASE stop vandalizing the page? --Squiggleslash (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Fine lets talk about the Alltell situation and what your thoughts are on it? Jdchamp31 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the correct positioning of the Alltel entry in the US Mobile Phone Companies template is most appropriately placed on that article's talk page, not here. In order to move forward, you need to show good faith, and present constructive arguments as to why you believe the previous consensus should be over-turned. A start that would show good faith on your part would be to revert the changes you made until a new consensus can be established. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

February 2008
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * Block has been lifted (unblocked) based on reviewing the case and recommendations. You sent me a private email that I responded to early this morning. I answered early today (6am EST) asking a question before I reconsidered. To this moment (6 hours later) I had not received a reply. Based on Trusilver's recommendation I reviewed the case and concluded that maybe I had been too hasty for which I apologize. Block has been lifted. -- Alexf42 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did reply, I wonder if the spam filter ate it. I still can't edit, I get a message about my IP address recently being browsed by me and therefore being blocked. But I appreciate you reverting your decision, and no apology needed. And thanks TruSilver for getting involved too - --Squiggleslash (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

TruSilver, Mediation, et al

 * You can include the following statement as part of the mediation template if you wish: I'm not able to edit at the moment because jdchamp's admin shopping on WP:AIV finally paid off

While, obviously, I'm happy to accept any attempt to produce a better US Mobile Phone Companies template, I have concerns about the mediation proposal currently made on the subject.

My first concern is that mediation is supposed to be one of the tools used after discussion has failed on the relevant article's discussion page. At this stage, the only person who appears steadfastly unable to posit views other than attacks on editors and the fact he disagrees with them (a discussion requires that you express your reasons why, and address the reasons given by the people who have opposing views) is jdchamp. A better position at this point would be to ask jdchamp to participate fully in the discussion on the Talk: page of the appropriate article. I have contributed my views to that discussion page multiple times in the last two weeks, and given my reasons for my beliefs. I have done also said that I believe this is the most appropriate action at this stage to jdchamp, and to TruSilver, the admin jdchamp has involved in the dispute about what is going on there. Unfortunately, he has instead repeatedly posted the same comments over and over again to my talk: page, varying from false accusations of bad conduct from me, to expressing a willingness to discuss the article (yet, for some reason, not followed by actual action on his part.)

Mediation only makes sense if the parties involved continue to have a dispute that's based upon a genuine difference of opinion after proper discussion. While that different of opinion might exist at this point, unless jdchamp actually expresses his differing opinion fully (as in, gives valid reasons and challenges the reasons his opponents give with legitimate arguments), there has been no discussion, and therefore going on to the next stage of dispute resolution seems premature.

My second concern, and believe me I'm not happy in saying this, is that I have concerns about TruSilver as the mediator. Please do not take anything I say about this as assuming bad faith, I'm absolutely sure TruSilver thinks what he's done is right: but that said, I don't trust his judgment on this issue, based upon an on-going harassment campaign leveled against me by jdchamp. TruSilver has consistently misrepresented my actions while doing little to challenge jdchamp's on-going campaign. In particular:


 * TruSilver has accused me of using his talk: page to continue my apparent argument with jdchamp. This is untrue: I have only ever posted once to TruSilver's talk: page, thanking him for getting involved in the mess and expressing my concern about it. After it became obvious that jdchamp was posting at the same time, and challenging my comments about my personal state of mind, I made the decision to not post there again.


 * TruSilver has accused me of refusing to discuss jdchamp's differences with me, these differences concerning the Mobile Phone Companies template. This is also manifestly untrue. I have have been a full participant in the discussion on that page's Talk: page, even participating in a poll that I believe was posted prematurely, arguing why I believe what I do and suggesting compromise solutions that might suit all parties. I have removed jdchamp's vandalism of my page, which in some cases involved posting claims that he was "willing to discuss" various issues, but were neither posted in the correct place, nor actual discussions of those issues.


 * TruSilver has also leveled unnecessary personal attacks on me, accusing me of being dysfunctional, and of disruptiveness, edit warring, and incivility. With the possible exception of my (pretty justified) expression of frustration last night, nothing I've done of late fits the latter category, and the nearest thing I've done that comes to "edit warring" consists of removing spam that has been repeatedly added to my page by jdchamp. The other comments are just plain insulting and wrong.

I've suffered a sustained campaign of harassment against me for most of the last 15 days. I asked for help, and instead the admin who put his hand up has essentially acted as an enabler for the person harassing me. Other than an ultimately unenforced threat to block jdchamp if he continued to spam WP:AIV with inappropriate demands I be blocked, nothing has been done to encourage jdchamp to tone down his behavior, and as he showed last night with three warnings, and multiple reverts on my Talk: page, his behavior remains as bad as ever.

While I'm sure TruSilver has acted in what he believes is the most appropriate way given the facts immediately available to him, I don't believe he has a handle on the extent to which this is not about whether Alltel is comparable to Verizon, but on one editor's attempts to harass another off of Wikipedia; I believe he's trying to be fair by treating both sides as equally bad when this is not the case; and as such I don't have any confidence in him as a mediator. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would happily remove myself as mediator of your case, becuase I honestly have much better things to do with my time at Wikipedia than moderate the two of you refusing to cooperate with each other. I unfortunately had to get on a plane right after posting my last comment yesterday and I wasn't available when the whole block thing came down last night. Otherwise I probably would have blocked Jdchamp too for once again ignoring my request to stop filing idiotic WP:AIV reports.


 * You are fooling yourself if you think for a second I favor him over you, no... I dislike both of you pretty much equally. I've honestly never seen a pair of adults whine as much as the two of you do. Both of you desperately need to take a step back, breathe in and out deeply, and think about how stupid of a dispute this really is. I've read every single edit either of you have made concerning each other and the pertinent articles and really, this entire thing could have been settled long ago by the two of you actually discussing your issue rather than calling each other's contributions vandalism, harassment, etc, etc, etc.


 * I'm done attempting to deal with the two of you in a rational manner, I'm just going to stand back and take action whenever either of you start being disruptive to the community in general. I've tried hard to encourage you both to talk to each other, but I'm done there. You've both been warned for incivility, disruptiveness, edit warring, etc. There won't be any further warnings. Trusilver  16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you favored him over me, I said you were treating us equally when it's blatantly clear to anyone looking in that there's only one party being actively disruptive here. I guess nothing I wrote actually registered, which in a way supports the second part of what I wrote. I'm sorry to be critical, but after two weeks of this crap, day in, day out, getting hammered with warnings and other bogus edits, and even trying to step back for the last four days, and still seeing myself blamed by you for this, and insulted, and generally treated as just as much crap as the person actively doing all of this, I had to say something. And you're still doing it. --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here'a a little bit of perspective - I spend most of my time here blocking vandals, processing CSD's and reviewing unblock requests. I can guarantee that there is no small number of people out there than view me with a level of hatred that I find almost touching. But even them I still have to deal with. I understand all the reasons you don't want to deal with jdchamp, but unless you are planning to recuse yourself from every single article he wants to contribute to, that's not really an option. I'm not asking you to fall all over yourself being congenial to him, but at the very least you need to keep communication open when it comes to articles that you are having a dispute on. Do you see this as being possible? Trusilver  16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But you're predicating the above on a false assumption, one I said was one of the things you're accusing me of: that fact is I have dealt with the issues Jdchamp raised, and done so in the proper forums, and intend to continue if I ever see a constructive argument come his way. The only extent to which I haven't has been me trying to do exactly the same "Step back and take a deep breath" since Monday thing that you're now arguing I should do. I honestly started to wonder if this was my imagination, so I just checked, I've even had a healthy discussion on the "poll" area with Strunke, one in which Jdchamp would have been welcome to join in had he had more to say than the "I demand administrator intervention", "You two are working together", type accusations he's been making. (Not that I would have stopped him, but the point is that seems to be the level of discussion.)


 * I'm not going to pretend there aren't comments I made very early on that were unhelpful (though any reasonable person would have seen them for what they were, how was I to know what I was dealing with?) But nothing I have done rose to the level that your insults against me suggested, and absolutely nothing at all, nothing, period, rose to the level that I deserved to have my page vandalized every day with bogus warnings and pseudo-make-ups.


 * You know, I've been on Wikipedia now for, well, I guess well over a year now. I've never had anything like this happen to me. I've had "robust" discussions before. I have never, ever, had a situation where someone was so obsessed with a technical detail that they decided to come to my Talk: page and post warnings over, and over, and over, and over again, or refused to post in the correct place when asked. Perhaps you regularly deal with worse people than that, I don't know. But I didn't deserve this. I reverted something that, at the time, was against consensus, and I did it a grand total of twice. I explained my reasons. The nearest thing I did at the time that came to being uncivil was pointing out that deliberately making changes against consensus can be seen by many of us as vandalism. What's happened since is ridiculous. I'm bewildered it happened, and I'm saddened you still are making the accusations against me that are very obviously not true. --Squiggleslash (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I once had someone spend a couple weeks doing everything he could to evade blocks so he could revert every edit of mine he could find, so yeah, I have a little bit of experience dealing with irrationality. And I agree that the dispute is stupid, not the stupidest ever, I reserve that for a dispute over whether or not WWE No Mercy should have a hyphen in it, resulting in it being protected for a month. And I certainly see that you are communicating, but I have also seen Jdchamp send you messages requesting to talk about it which you have erased as spam, that's not the action of someone who is trying all that hard to come to a consensus. My biggest suggestion is you do everything you possibly can to keep communication open with him, that way when he acts inappropriately you are justified in saying that you have done everything you can to deal with him. (I'm not saying to not delete his invalid warnings, they are all pretty much bull anyway.) Trusilver  17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Alltel
I would like to come to some sort of consensus on the Template in debate. Please advise. Jdchamp31 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than constantly asking this in my Talk: area, why don't you post in the Template's Talk: area your proposals and let the entire group discuss this issue? You and I are not the only people who have differing views on this.


 * In accordance with my policy on discouraging the discussion of articles in my private Talk: area, I will be deleting this comment in 24 hours. --Squiggleslash (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have but there is no response Jdchamp31 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing you've posted to respond to. You quoted Strunke there but I've already addressed his points (and his later reply seems to be a restating of his position.) If you have a proposal where all seven of us who have thus far expressed an opinion can find common ground, then go ahead and post it. But I'm still baffled as to why you insist on making this a private conversation between the two of us: I've asked you over and over and over and over again to post in the template's Talk: page. That is the right place if you actually seriously want a consensus. --Squiggleslash (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why dont you cut the attitude and try and be productive. What do you think, a renaming of the categories? Jdchamp31 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB request
Hello, Squiggleslash. I wanted to let you know that I've accepted the WP:MEDCAB case you have been named as a party to (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-01 US mobile phone companies). I would like to know if you accept me as a mediator, please indicate your acceptance on the case page. Thanks very much, Keilana | Parlez ici 04:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)