When you have an issue you cannot solve who do you go to? DR process isn't helping and my problem is with the DR as I consider it to be broken.
I want to be able to get a problem I see addressed and fixed. I want to deal with this without being constantly accused of random things.
I currently lack such a median and am open to suggestions.
- White Cat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
White Cat wrote:
When you have an issue you cannot solve who do you go to? DR process isn't helping and my problem is with the DR as I consider it to be broken.
I want to be able to get a problem I see addressed and fixed. I want to deal with this without being constantly accused of random things.
I currently lack such a median and am open to suggestions.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Some of the possible options you have...
* Disengaging - If its not all that important, and you can leave it be, disengage and let the other party have it.
* Compromise - Offer a compromise solution, meet in the middle.
* Seek outside opinions - Request comments from outside neutral parties. If this is an on wiki issue, we have article RFC and 3O. (Request for comments, third opinion)
* Mediation
* I know you said DR is broken, but it's really not. DR was not designed to let everyone get his or her own way. Read the page in its entirety, try some of the suggestions there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Best, Jon
When you have an issue you cannot solve who do you go to? DR process isn't helping and my problem is with the DR as I consider it to be broken.
I want to be able to get a problem I see addressed and fixed. I want to deal with this without being constantly accused of random things.
I currently lack such a median and am open to suggestions.
- White Cat
The dispute resolution process is where you go.
Fred
White Cat schreef:
When you have an issue you cannot solve who do you go to? DR process isn't helping and my problem is with the DR as I consider it to be broken.
In that case, WT:DR is probably the best place to start. Other places to try are WP:V, WP:AN, WP:RFC, this mailing list, IRC, wikback.com.
I want to be able to get a problem I see addressed and fixed. I want to deal with this without being constantly accused of random things.
If you feel that people are personally attacking you, the best way to fix the problem may be to find people who agree with you (for example, by posting at one of the places mentioned above), and to let them argue your case.
Eugene
I have replied to three people below.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Some of the possible options you have...
- Disengaging - If its not all that important, and you can leave it be,
disengage and let the other party have it.
Compromise - Offer a compromise solution, meet in the middle.
Seek outside opinions - Request comments from outside neutral parties.
If this is an on wiki issue, we have article RFC and 3O. (Request for comments, third opinion)
Mediation
I know you said DR is broken, but it's really not. DR was not
designed to let everyone get his or her own way. Read the page in its entirety, try some of the suggestions there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Best, Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIPto46+ro8Pm1AtURAjenAKCAowD5CdJOFNkhjEpOXoL45JBtBgCgnWzu zVJJDdNGUe/rSIM1/40zpfs= =5jnr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Disengaging isn't always possible particularly when you are the one being constantly engaged. I may not necessarily be the side seeking a change.
Compromise may not be possible in above conditions. In addition, system on wikipedia discourages compromises immensely. If you compromise once in a month or two the other side demands more and more compromises.
RFC is a dead process. No one pays attention to 3Os. When I seek the opinion of third parties I am name called as a forum shopper and etc.
I am officially banned from mediation indefinitely. I do not want to get involved with processes I am banned from. I do not believe mediation is a possibility in the above scenario.
I tried using DR for the past three years. DR is useless bureaucracy nothing more. It is badly broken from the very bottom (RFC) to top (RFAR).
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The dispute resolution process is where you go.
Fred
Umm. I said DR is not working.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
White Cat schreef:
When you have an issue you cannot solve who do you go to? DR process
isn't
helping and my problem is with the DR as I consider it to be broken.
In that case, WT:DR is probably the best place to start. Other places to try are WP:V, WP:AN, WP:RFC, this mailing list, IRC, wikback.com.
I want to be able to get a problem I see addressed and fixed. I want to
deal
with this without being constantly accused of random things.
If you feel that people are personally attacking you, the best way to fix the problem may be to find people who agree with you (for example, by posting at one of the places mentioned above), and to let them argue your case.
Eugene
WT pages <- I tried "WT" pages before. As a result I was declared a troll.
WP:V <- I don't see how that fits in. Maybe it's a typo?
WP:AN <- Isn't very reliable in resolving issues especially complex ones. No one pays attention to long discussions there.
WP:RFC < - I have not seen RFC resolve anything before. I used it one or twice, that was when I decided this process was 100% useless.
This or some other mailing list <- I have been declared a forum shopper for daring to use this.
IRC <- I have been regularly declined on IRC. Very very rarely do people decide to help me on IRC on semi-complex issues.
wikback.com <- I have never heard of this before. I may try it though I have serious doubts.
----
Finding people to "agree" with is rather hard. Most people do not want to get involved in disputes that do not concern them. In addition some people seem to go out of their way to disagree with me. A good number of people will think of conspiracies and such as they seem to have an endless supply of bad faith. It is rather depressing at times. People do not even bother to pretend they care any more.
People generally attack me, call me names, accuse me of things. I have not found many people who are willing to listen to me and offer advice or help out in other ways. I had one such person NYB who helped me out in disputes by offering sound advice from time to time. Sadly I lost contact with him after he got into arbcom as he got rather busy. Now he is completely gone. He was my buffer at hard times and I do not have a "replacement". Irreplaceable people like NYB should be cherished by our community.
- White Cat
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:22 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am officially banned from mediation indefinitely. I do not want to get involved with processes I am banned from. I do not believe mediation is a possibility in the above scenario.
You are banned from conducting mediations, not from participating in them.
White Cat wrote:
When you have an issue you cannot solve who do you go to? DR process isn't helping and my problem is with the DR as I consider it to be broken.
I want to be able to get a problem I see addressed and fixed. I want to deal with this without being constantly accused of random things.
I currently lack such a median and am open to suggestions.
You are pursuing too many controversial and complex issues at the same time. Some of us are concerned about rogue bots and wonder about hidden agendas. Some of us who have never over several years become involved in an Arbcom case wonder about the problem of Arbcom's page management. Some of us who have not sought scholarships to Wikimania wonder about your impatience to have that decided by volunteers who have no obligation to hurry. We find you as a lone voice in the thick of all these issues at once and more. Yes, I can understand that you would feel besieged!
Learn to pick your fights, and avoid entering them with such a deep preconception that you are right.
Ec
I am not pursuing a single controversial or complex issue right now. I am pursuing no issue.
I do not run rouge bots. You have evidence of that? Or are you accusing merely to accuse?
I do not have a hidden agenda despite being accused of it *all the freaking time*. People are willing to give indef blocked users a second chance yet are not willing to give me a first one. I was never indef blocked for disruption. Does that make me less or more trustworthy than an indef blocked user? Because I do not account hop to sockpuppet accounts?
I did not choose to get involved with arbcom. I was only involved with arbcom as a means of DR over a three year old dispute. I was dealing with the same user and his sockpuppets on all five instances where I was involved with arbcom. I did not know at the time that I shouldn't have used DR process. Once you get involved with arbcom once you are branded for the rest of your life.
I am very impatient with the scholarships because I am staring at the number of plane seats disappearing. No this is not a temporal paradox, people buy tickets. Soon I will not be able to buy a ticket because either there will not be any seats left or the prices will gradually rise to astronomical values. I am not a rich person so I have serious financial concerns. I do want to attend this meeting of a website and asset I value greatly. I will not be able to afford the astronomical prices of plane tickets. I have merely respectfully proded the committee about the deadline which they may have forgotten. Better safe than sorry right?
I don't pick fights.
The perception is that I am always unconditionally wrong is maybe part of the problem. People always have an endless supply of bad faith when dealing with me. Maybe that is also part of the problem. Just maybe.
I participate in many discussions. I will get involved with as many of them as I see fit. There are many other people who get involved in more discussions than I.
-- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
When you have an issue you cannot solve who do you go to? DR process
isn't
helping and my problem is with the DR as I consider it to be broken.
I want to be able to get a problem I see addressed and fixed. I want to
deal
with this without being constantly accused of random things.
I currently lack such a median and am open to suggestions.
You are pursuing too many controversial and complex issues at the same time. Some of us are concerned about rogue bots and wonder about hidden agendas. Some of us who have never over several years become involved in an Arbcom case wonder about the problem of Arbcom's page management. Some of us who have not sought scholarships to Wikimania wonder about your impatience to have that decided by volunteers who have no obligation to hurry. We find you as a lone voice in the thick of all these issues at once and more. Yes, I can understand that you would feel besieged!
Learn to pick your fights, and avoid entering them with such a deep preconception that you are right.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
White Cat wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
You are pursuing too many controversial and complex issues at the same time. Some of us are concerned about rogue bots and wonder about hidden agendas.
I do not run rouge bots. You have evidence of that? Or are you accusing merely to accuse?
I do not have a hidden agenda despite being accused of it *all the freaking time*. People are willing to give indef blocked users a second chance yet are not willing to give me a first one.
In my estimation a rogue bot is one that makes automatic changes on a project without any consideration whatsoever for the concerns of the regular participants in that project. If a project's community wants to do things differently for reason of its own that's fine.Given the quantity of projects on which you appear to want to run the bot it's easy to understand that you may be completely unaware of the discussions that have taken place on that project. If that project is in a language that the bot operator does not understand than any attempt at reasonable discussion would be futile.
Learn to pick your fights, and avoid entering them with such a deep preconception that you are right.
I don't pick fights.
Sorry if that one came out sounding wrong. "Choose your battles" would have been more appropriate phrasing.
Ec
Wikipedia is not a battleground. I do not seek battles.
- White Cat
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
White Cat wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
You are pursuing too many controversial and complex issues at the same time. Some of us are concerned about rogue bots and wonder about hidden agendas.
I do not run rouge bots. You have evidence of that? Or are you accusing merely to accuse?
I do not have a hidden agenda despite being accused of it *all the
freaking
time*. People are willing to give indef blocked users a second chance yet are not willing to give me a first one.
In my estimation a rogue bot is one that makes automatic changes on a project without any consideration whatsoever for the concerns of the regular participants in that project. If a project's community wants to do things differently for reason of its own that's fine.Given the quantity of projects on which you appear to want to run the bot it's easy to understand that you may be completely unaware of the discussions that have taken place on that project. If that project is in a language that the bot operator does not understand than any attempt at reasonable discussion would be futile.
Learn to pick your fights, and avoid entering them with such a deep preconception that you are right.
I don't pick fights.
Sorry if that one came out sounding wrong. "Choose your battles" would have been more appropriate phrasing.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/5/30 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
Wikipedia is not a battleground. I do not seek battles.
- White Cat
White Cat, please, enough.
Enough for what? I won't be silenced. Do not bother to try.
- White Cat
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
2008/5/30 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
Wikipedia is not a battleground. I do not seek battles.
- White CatWhite Cat, please, enough.
-- Al Tally (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/5/30 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
Enough for what? I won't be silenced. Do not bother to try.
- White Cat
A response hardly consistent with your claim not to seek battles. Majorly is hardly going to try and censor you not really his style and yet in one interaction you are heading for battle (I mean I could understand if it was one interaction we me but Majorly?). But the claim of not seeking battles was never credible.
See while editors who do not actively seek battles may stumble into them from time to time it is uncommon and for the most part they have little trouble withdrawing.
Other editors are indifferent to conflict if it happens it happens. If it doesn't it doesn't
There are a few who actively seek out conflict this may or may not be a problem.
You get involved in far far to many battles to fall into the first group. The second is again not credible since a higher than expected percentage of your interactions seem to end in conflict. So that leaves us with the third. You do seek battles.
Now this in itself may not be a bad thing. I suspect a fair number of our vandal hunters are driven by the desire for conflict. While certain of our colleagues may detest them for this they are useful. Others who try and keep NPOV in place in certain areas I suspect have a certain desire for conflict but this is again useful.
But the useful ones tend to have an important trait. They can keep the conflict localized. This means both the obvious that they generally fight things out on talk pages viewing escalation to arbcom and the like as an absolute last resort but also tend to be fairly self contained. If arbcom judges against them they simply shrug and move on. They deal with the conflicts themselves rather than trying to drag in other unwilling participants. Taken to far this can itself cause problems but less so than the alternative.
You do no have this trait. Your first instinct when faced with conflict appears to be to escalate. To try and get others to fight the battles you engage in for you. You do do quite a good line in passive aggressiveness to support this.
To the actual case. So en arbcom want to have some level of control over the arbitration process? Is that a completely insane idea? Because anything less and no one is really going to be looking to oppose them. Particularly not senior people who quite rightly recognize that arbcom act as a useful shield between them and large amounts of stupid conflict. Your only other option would be to build an onwiki group of at least 100 people which isn't going to happen. You cannot win this fight. So would you please stop wasting time by going on about it and if possible reconsider your wider behavior.
You are among the people who assume I am wrong all of the time. You (singular) aren't alone in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive... visible there are many examples of people who go out of their way to attack me and defend the indef blocked guy. You (plural) show no understanding whatsoever. That is why I pay attention to you (plural) as little as possible. I told you (plural) many times to stop pursuing me and stop stirring a nonexistent controversy in every time I am seeking a resolution. That should hardly be normal. Along the people who have relentlessly pursued me in the past included users like Essjay and Kelly Martin who assumed the role of being my nemesis. Both were trusted users who were arbitrators and checkusers. At least one was a bureaucrat. So I am rather familiar with being unjustly prosecuted. It wont work any more though. I do not seek adminship on en.wikipedia so there is no reason for me to care about my "wiki-charisma". You cannot ruin something I do not care about.
I do not seek battles. I did not ask Davenbelle to stalk me. I do not have an interest in conflict. I go out of my way not to escalate disputes. I patiently wait, wait, wait and wait. I have been waiting arbcom to make up their freaking mind since early may only to be ignored (case was removed yet again over inactivity). Hence why I feel arbcom is quite useless.
If I am participating in a conversation, I only seek to correct what I see is wrong in the system. We call this consensus seeking or discussion. You call it a battle.
I have been dealing with the same user for the past there years. This user has had four accounts so far. The only reason I went to arbcom was to deal with him as a last resort. I have been around arbcom a total of five times. In each and every instance this user was involved. I am tired of being blamed of his conduct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think of it in a different way. I am on a dynamic IP range. I have advanced technical knowledge. I know the flaws and vulnerabilities of Mediawiki. It takes me a touch of a button to pick a new wiki-identity. I am trying to find a way out on the mailing lists rather than engage in battles. Is that the conduct of a person seeking battles? If it is, then this must be the most peaceful war ever imagined.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post was never about arbcoms general structure. I was complaining about the absence of a dispute resolution system on wikipedia. [[WP:DR]] is not capable of resolving anything.
-- White Cat
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:11 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/30 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
Enough for what? I won't be silenced. Do not bother to try.
- White Cat
A response hardly consistent with your claim not to seek battles. Majorly is hardly going to try and censor you not really his style and yet in one interaction you are heading for battle (I mean I could understand if it was one interaction we me but Majorly?). But the claim of not seeking battles was never credible.
See while editors who do not actively seek battles may stumble into them from time to time it is uncommon and for the most part they have little trouble withdrawing.
Other editors are indifferent to conflict if it happens it happens. If it doesn't it doesn't
There are a few who actively seek out conflict this may or may not be a problem.
You get involved in far far to many battles to fall into the first group. The second is again not credible since a higher than expected percentage of your interactions seem to end in conflict. So that leaves us with the third. You do seek battles.
Now this in itself may not be a bad thing. I suspect a fair number of our vandal hunters are driven by the desire for conflict. While certain of our colleagues may detest them for this they are useful. Others who try and keep NPOV in place in certain areas I suspect have a certain desire for conflict but this is again useful.
But the useful ones tend to have an important trait. They can keep the conflict localized. This means both the obvious that they generally fight things out on talk pages viewing escalation to arbcom and the like as an absolute last resort but also tend to be fairly self contained. If arbcom judges against them they simply shrug and move on. They deal with the conflicts themselves rather than trying to drag in other unwilling participants. Taken to far this can itself cause problems but less so than the alternative.
You do no have this trait. Your first instinct when faced with conflict appears to be to escalate. To try and get others to fight the battles you engage in for you. You do do quite a good line in passive aggressiveness to support this.
To the actual case. So en arbcom want to have some level of control over the arbitration process? Is that a completely insane idea? Because anything less and no one is really going to be looking to oppose them. Particularly not senior people who quite rightly recognize that arbcom act as a useful shield between them and large amounts of stupid conflict. Your only other option would be to build an onwiki group of at least 100 people which isn't going to happen. You cannot win this fight. So would you please stop wasting time by going on about it and if possible reconsider your wider behavior.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/5/30 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
You are among the people who assume I am wrong all of the time.
You know that is a lie. Betting I don't have the relevant IRC logs would be kinda dicey no? In any case they are not needed. Or are you seriously going to try and maintain that my involvement in the Episodes and characters mess was nothing to do with you?
geni wrote:
2008/5/30 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
You are among the people who assume I am wrong all of the time.
You know that is a lie. Betting I don't have the relevant IRC logs would be kinda dicey no? In any case they are not needed. Or are you seriously going to try and maintain that my involvement in the Episodes and characters mess was nothing to do with you?
No more. Enough, take it elsewhere.
--CWii
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 10:12 AM, John compwhizii@gmail.com wrote:
No more. Enough, take it elsewhere.
Am I the only one who pops popcorn before reading wikien-l?
How does that fit in? I have nothing to hide. I have posted the episode and character dispute on the irc channels many times. I saw a genuine problem and asked 3rd parties to comment. Among the people I invited are people who have the exact opposite views as I have. Putting links to wikipedia discussions on IRC is a common practice.
In general my interaction with you had been very unpleasant.
-- White Cat
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 5:06 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/30 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
You are among the people who assume I am wrong all of the time.
You know that is a lie. Betting I don't have the relevant IRC logs would be kinda dicey no? In any case they are not needed. Or are you seriously going to try and maintain that my involvement in the Episodes and characters mess was nothing to do with you?
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l