User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Archives

As stated above, stale threads will be archived where appropiate; please follow the instructions above to revive archived conversations.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 23:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Continue discussion?

I've tried to follow your instructions for continuing the discussion, and you've reverted it. Do you not want me continuing the discussion, not discussing anything here at all, or want me to use a different venue for discussion such as email? --Ronz 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not that - you simply posted the discussion back over without adding your next comment; feel free to readd it if you have something more to say ~ Anthøny 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't fast enough for you. I'll wait until I have the reply done, then post it all at once. --Ronz 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't fast enough - it was there for a good ten minutes ;-) take all the time you want, and be sure to revert me if I accidentally edit over you!

Regards,
Anthøny 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Pending mediation

Per your request, I have tried to discontinue the discussion regarding Stephen Barrett, but Ronz keeps pestering me on my talk page. I have asked him politely several times to refrain. He has ignored my requests. In turn, I have reported him on AN/I. I am hoping that this will end his harrassment, but I would appreciate any help which you can provide here. Is there anything within your capacity as mediator you can do? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess Levine2112 is trying to change the scope of the mediation to include the issue of how many books Barrett has written, as well as the behavioral issues that MaxPont clearly violated in the subsequent discussions: WP:POINT, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:HARRASS, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. I had hoped that Levine2112 would make some sort of stand against such violations, considering he's often so very quick to claim harassment, hostility, and incivility in others. I don't know what to make of the situation other than there's a double-standard here. --Ronz 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me be frank here: the attitude between you two parties (as well as a number of the others with one another) and the relationship between you is completely inappropiate for a Mediation case. Mediation depends completely on a civility and willingness to discuss with one another between the parties, and this is completely absent from this dispute ~ Anthøny 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that Levine2112 is a disruptive editor, prone to assuming bad faith and ignoring policy when it suits his needs. Despite this, I went into your mediation by putting it aside, hoping that the formal mediation would force him to be civil and cooperative. From the mediation so far, I don't think he's capable of being cooperative when it comes to topics related to Barrett.

I'm also concerned, given Levine2112's habit of assuming bad faith of others to make his points, that he either doesn't understand WP:AGF or is incapable of it in the context of Barrett. If this is the case, then we're all wasting our time with these mediation attempts. --Ronz 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One bit of advice: don't go throwing accusations of bad faith on behalf of other editors ~ Anthøny 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, I am happy that you recognize the bad faith accusations by Ronz. I, as I have mentioned numerous times, believe mediation can and will help. I think under your supervision, all parties will be forced to stay on point and - more important - act civilly. I regret that Ronz thinks I am being a "disruptive editor" in terms of Stephen Barrett (even though I haven't edited persay on that article for quite some time). I have only been involved in discussion. Further, let me make it clear that I have never tried to change the scope of the mediation to include how many books Barrett has written. This, like many of Ronz's accusations, is a total fabrication. My point - my only point - during the ongoing debate about Barrett's authorship is that Ronz seems to be inconsistently applying Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:WEIGHT) with that case as opposed to the board certification case. I am sorry for mentioning this because instead of discussing policy with me, Ronz launched into an attack on my character. I would have preferred a civil discussion. Again, I am prepared to admit that my interpretation of policy is wrong. I am also completely open to compromise. I hope that Ronz feels the same way. I am anxious to re-start our mediation and have some resolve with this matter. In case mediation proves not to be successful, I have listed our case with ArbCom. I know they have a huge caseload, and I want to be on their decks early. Regardless, I have high hopes for mediation. Thanks, Anthony. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew - I fully agree with you; Ronz is acting in bad faith, banding accusations about willy-nilly with no backing nor grounds for doing so. Ronz: this is getting beyond the ignorable stage; if you proceed with disrupting the encyclopedia, as well as what is undoubtedly going out of your way, I will have to take further action, as well as post to WP:ANI to request the backing of my fellow Administrators. Andrew: unfortunately when parties such as this are involved in Mediation, it is both fruitless and pointless, and therefore I see no point in proceeding; one further point: I've retired from the Mediation Cabal, and have taken up membership with the Mediation Committee, so a MedCabal case would not be able to be handled by myself.

Levine and Ronz: hopefully you will take these points on board, and I appreciate your input in this matter; however, I believe Mediation would be unproductive, and I would not be willing to serve as the Mediator in this particular case after observing the action that has taken place before the main issues are even approached (i.e., Mediation has started).

Kindest regards,
Anthøny 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First, congrats on your membership with MedCom. Second, with regards to the Stephen Barrett "board certification" issue, would ArbCom be the next step for us to take? Or is there another route which you would suggest for us to take first? Thanks again for your help with this seemingly innocuous but instead rather very contentious issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not comment on a possible progression to the ArbCom; instead, you may wish to consult with the other parties or contact a member of the Arbitration Commitee. Basically, you have to make that decision for yourself; good luck! Regards ~ Anthøny 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Levine2112's inability to follow WP:AGF is obvious, and I think I can demonstrate such. If you are preventing me from discussing such problems, then you should go forward with your AN/I. However, I'm having a hard time understanding your comment above [1]. You mean "Levine2112" when you say "Andrew" I think, but I'm not sure. Who is "Andrew?"--Ronz 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Andrew is Levine ~ Anthøny 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Three things: I think I successfully put aside any assumptions I had of Levine2112's behavior during the mediation (my contributions to the discussion), and I can do so again.

"banding accusations about willy-nilly with no backing nor grounds for doing so" I will back them when and if necessary. If you need to go to AFI about this, please do.

"I believe Mediation would be unproductive" So, should there be some formal announcement that the Mediation is halted? Maybe qualified until a new mediator is found? --Ronz 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"...Banding accusations about willy-nilly..."—you never do back them Ronz, my friend, and there is where the problem lies; furthermore, any accusations of bad faith posted in public during or in the lead up to Mediation is one of the most detramental things you can do ... during my Mediations I insist on any accusations/claims of bad faith being directed to me via a method listed here (excluding my talk page) - e.g., email - rather than in the user's face;

"...Mediation would be unproductive..."—I regret to say this (it is the first time I have ever done so) but I do believe this; the relationship between the disputing parties is so poor, Mediation would be pointless;

"...Should a replacement be found?..."—regardless of whether or not I was willing to Mediate, I would be unable to due to my recent joining of the Mediation Committee; to receive Mediation from a Mediator (not a Mediation Cabalist, a Mediator or MedCom member) as that would have to be directed via WP:RfM, and even then I would have to abstain due to a conflict of interest;

Therefore, I hope I've cleared up your understanding of my willingness and ability to Mediate this dispute, as well as my statement that throwing around accusations of bad faith is unproductive for Mediation, and that your acceptance will swiftly follow.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"you never do back them" We're getting nowhere fast here. I've backed them in my discussions with Levine2112 and in forums where I though it proper to do so.

Sorry to butt in, but Ronz does explain policy, prehaps not to the detail that some editors would like, but often certain editors go round and round so often that the explaination is miles behind. These editors have had it pointed out by others but they then target Ronz to explain, explain, explain again. Something which tests the patience of all editors. Shot info 01:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, no he doesn't; the only experiences I've had with Ronz is claims of Bad Faith that wither on the vine when substantial evidence to prove his claims are requested ~ Anthøny 01:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"is one of the most detramental things you can do" Good point.

"the relationship between the disputing parties is so poor, Mediation would be pointless" Well, we both pretty much agree that it would be pretty much pointless. I guess that's enough.

So, it looks like some formal announcement about the mediation being stalled would be in order now, correct? --Ronz 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes – I'll let the parties know ~ Anthøny 00:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

All the actively contributing parties have been emailed ~ Anthøny 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)