This is an automated message. Your
editor review is scheduled to be closed on 29 March 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive-->
to the review page will prevent further automated actions.
AnomieBOT
⚡ 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Message delivered by MediationBot ( talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.
The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the
Mediation Committee.)
Glad that you have been back. I have been badly busy now too. I am not the "main driver" and I saw reasonable suggestions from STSC and PHead128 not long before. The environment of the dispute has made me having less and less confidence on the coming mediation. Thanks for your message. -- Lvhis ( talk) 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes Bob, I also like the dual name solution but Wikipedia does not seem to endorse a dual name very much. In any case, I would support the dual name argument in the mediation process. STSC ( talk) 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Bob, I am too busy to input my whole thought on the argument in one time. Maybe the incontinuity causes some problem. I am still working on it. Thanks.-- Lvhis ( talk) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I was in the mood to confront those edit-warlords in the absence of the mediator, particularly when I saw John Smith's appearing on the scene! STSC ( talk) 10:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Guess what, I was in that mood again 'cos I was bored to dead by that guy! STSC ( talk) 18:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have had enough fun, just can't be bothered with that! STSC ( talk) 03:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's say, it's just his obsession to write in the way he writes. STSC ( talk) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
He must be in a very bad mood! STSC ( talk) 08:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Feezo is asking for an apology. Please Bob, there's no harm in doing it privately on his email or talk page. STSC ( talk) 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
My friend Qwyrxian, I am not trying to be unreasonable here. Since you have decided to proclaim that Tenmei has no civility problem, here are a few excerpts that I would like you to make sense out of (all authored by our friend Tenmei):
With that said, it's definitely possible that you don't find these statements at all offensive. If that's the case, then I will use Tenmei's posts as a case study on how I can better communicate my thoughts inoffensively. You are also welcomed to not reply to this post if you do not want to explain to me why these comments are considered appropriate and civil. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 06:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for letting me know, I'll have some input on that over there later.
STSC (
talk) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It's just another trick, his argument won't stand. STSC ( talk) 01:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Bob, your last message was moved to heading no.23 on my talk page. I replied under no.8 on yours. STSC ( talk) 02:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Bob, that they keep tangling that "penny" thing has been boring me to die (like STSC said before :-)). I have no choice but to build that "very.............y" big wall of text. See if this "verrrrrrry" big wall can more or less help to end that tangling thing or tricks. -- Lvhis ( talk) 03:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That sounds pretty normal. I'd say Qwyrxian's okay even though he can be stubborn (well at least he tries to be reasonable). Go to the naming conventions page if you want to see some of the more ridiculous arguments. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm really tired of it! STSC ( talk) 10:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried to make it clearer that people should discuss the issue at the central page, not at the pages where you pasted the discussion. — Kusma ( t· c) 07:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 10:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
-- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have overlooked your message under Pinnacle Islands on my Talk page, sorry about that. I have set up the e-mail function on Wiki so you're welcome to e-mail anytime through my user page. STSC ( talk) 19:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Good on you (and on your health) that you go away for a while. Just get out of sight of that Humanoid, then you'll be fine! STSC ( talk) 04:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Same as STSC's wish, take care! We have done good job proving that the current Japanese title/name is a POV one. All of the grounds of our opponents argument such as "SI is an English name", "SI is the name mostly used in English" have been proved wrong and groundless. Even the Mediation will mostly end up with failure, the contents of the debate have been there and can be referred later. The POV-title tag shall be on as long as the POV title there and the dispute has not been solved. -- Lvhis ( talk) 04:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob nice to see you back again. Things happened like this way that I am listing in time order:
Feezo announced the mediation formally closed --> John Smith's asked Feezo to remove the POV-tag from the main page SI --> Feezo removed the tag --> I input my confusion on Feezo's talk page --> Feezo asked me to follow the standard procedure as Xe was no longer our mediator any more --> Tenmei removed the POV-tag from the SID page and triggered BDR cycle involving me and Oda Mari, but I would say both of them acted as vandalism when they removed this legal tag --> Feezo locked the SID page on the status the tag removed by Tenmei's 2nd rv --> at meantime I made an edit request for adding back the tag in the protected SI page, and reminded admin Penwhale who ever put the tag on before Feezo removed it --> admin Penwhale granted my request adding the tag back in the main page SI --> Johm Smith's got mad and made a complaint in ANI against Penwhale --> Tenmei input a comment in admin Magog the Ogre's talk page --> Magog the Ogre went to the SID page, and unlocked + reverted it at the status before BDR triggered by Tenmei, and put a sanction there (wonderful one!) --> and then ... you got a call ... here now. Hope I am not confusing you :). -- Lvhis ( talk) 04:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, just to reply to your message earlier: It's good to have you back to counter those edit-warlords as I'm not very active on Wiki due to work commitment. All the best! STSC ( talk) 04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine, Bob; thanks for your concern. STSC ( talk) 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Bobthefish2, I am simply offering those who seem to have a link to Qwyrxian to provide their voice, and, in doing so, I make no mention of how they should voice their opinion, which is important. In this light, I am within policy of Wikipedia, to wit: "...it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Having people who have dealt with Qwyrxian say what they think improves the quality of the nomination board because each viewer then comes away with information of a genuine sense of how Qwyrxian really is in his participation on Wikipedia. If I were to be canvassing, I would have expressly stated something to the effect of the following: "OH, please go to the nomination board and OPPOSE Qwyrxian's nomination for the position of administrator." I didn't do that, so I believe I have done nothing wrong. And, quite honestly, if Qwyrxian believes he has been such a good participant on Wikipedia, he should not have anything to fear about my wanting those with a significant dealing with Qwyrxian to provide their impression of him, good or bad. Thank you for your cooperation in considering my viewpoint! Diligent007 ( talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You've been quoted here [1] in the statement "Bobthefish2, among others, were deprived of the ability to be informed of their opportunity to voice their opinion about the nomination. Bobthefish2 said so himself because of Qwyrxian's sly attempts of manipulating the turnout."
Just letting you know. Dayewalker ( talk) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support | |
Thank you for your question and support at my RfA. I will say, I was surprised to see your support, given our...troubled past...heck, troubled present. I appreciate your willingness to provide a fair assessment. Though we will likely continue to disagree on many things, I hope that I can still fulfill your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
I did. See here. Thanks. -- Lvhis ( talk) 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop goading other editors. Some examples:
I don't know if anyone's mentioned it to you before (probably), but I personally find it to create a very bad atmosphere. I'm not going to threaten to outright block you at this point for it - I'm not a big fan of blocks for incivility unless it becomes uncorrected, but if it does continue, it could eventually lead down that road. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 07:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre ( talk) 08:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob!
The first fellow's "grow a pair" was non-optimal but human, and the tone of his overall statement was more problematic. I just asked him not to repeat a sexist phrase, and took a moment to raise awareness. It was not a big deal, as the first fellow is quite right to say.
I've explained the 2nd and 3rd remarks as plausibly deliberate and not nice and I wanted them to end.
What kind of computing do you do? Not everybody loves algorithms, but is defending Knuth's definitions really buffoonery?
GO TO (as in Considered Harmful) a library was supposed to be funny; I originally wrote "Look at a pirated copy on the internet" but thought better of it. (I would have though Knuth's volumes would be on every optimization person's shelf the way Das Kapital was on every Trot's shelf.)
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, if ArbCom is mainly dealing with user's conduct, for the case of current naming dispute, could it be a subject that some user's conduct such as pushing wiki taking side against NPOV with original researches, double standards, ignoring most close precedent and guideline, etc, resulting in that the dispute cannot be resolved for a long time? -- Lvhis ( talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Qwyrxian ( talk) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advise; I don't have much time on hand so my input was being kept short. STSC ( talk) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm taking this off the workshop talkpage to avoid bloat and because my question is very specific. I'm slightly confused by "you can undo my move": I'm not sure which move you are referring to. Regards -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Bob, thanks for your critiques and suggestions on my input in "Evidence". You are right that it is more important for us to focus on the part "Evidence". -- Lvhis ( talk) 17:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I just realized there is Signpost about ArbCom when I got this [8]. It seems a kind of usefulness by taking a look at the given links. -- Lvhis ( talk) 22:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Definitely needed that. Incidentally, I love masala tea. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Bobthefish2. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Senkaku Islands Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 656 words and 51 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Bob, regarding WP:NOR, what you raised there is not a pure Original research in discussions in deciding whether an RS is right or wrong. That was about interpretations by Japanese RS on a Chinese primary source article. WP's policy WP:SOURCE states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" while this statement tagged "under discussion". This policy also requires " Neutrality" for choosing/using RS. This was why I mainly used two RSs from Japanese authors when debating with Qwyrxian. Qwyrxian's using OR in discussion preventing consensus in edit of the page and may prevent consensus in the naming issue should not be allowable. BTW, the example you raised above has now had Chinese RS for its own interpretation or explanation, see here, reference #11.-- Lvhis ( talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advise; my time is limited but I'll refine my evidence when time allows. STSC ( talk) 13:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You may look at the page: WP:TW. Twinkle is primarily an anti-vandalism tool; it should not be used too often for reverting good-faith edits. STSC ( talk) 02:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Bob, I trust the ArbCom guys are fair-minded people, they are not Fascists or Communists! STSC ( talk) 05:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have got it off my chest, I shall stop commenting from now (I try!). STSC ( talk) 02:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the treatment received by Lvhis was unfair, I'll look into it. STSC ( talk) 02:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Bob, could you reconsider your disagreement on my " proposed principle 4.5.1.1"? OR is a quite severe violation seen by ArbCom, if what I interpreted on the sample Elen advised to us is correct. Although here Q used OR in discussion, it was still severe because preventing consensus and improvement of the page content. The case you mentioned was about if the Japanese RSs interpreting a Chinese RS were neutral or not, and how to express them in the wiki page. That was not OR. If you agreed on my such point, could you strike out your disagreeing comment there? Thanks. -- Lvhis ( talk) 17:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 asked me on my talk page to comment here. I believe that Lvhis is misunderstanding WP:OR, although in a very subtle way that is not uncommon among many Wikipedians (usually newer wikipedians, but even some long-term ones). However, to explain it all will require quite a lot of work and a likely debate on a lot of intricate details, and I don't believe this is the appropriate time for such a discussion. Obviously, Arbcom is free to rule that I did violate OR, in which case I expect I shall receive a topic ban (or worse). But as far as figuring out how to move forward on the articles, I want to wait until later; perhaps we can involve the OR noticeboard at the appropriate time (obviously, during arbitration is not the appropriate time). I am also worried that any slight mistake I might make, or any point I explain with less than perfect clarity, will be instantly copied somewhere into the proceedings as evidence that I am clearly intending to subvert Wikipedia and destroy its neutrality in order to advance my own obvious POV. That is, I don't feel "safe" discussing this now. I promise to revisit the issue if it is still relevant after Arbitration is done (assuming that I and the two of you are still allowed to discuss the issue at that point). Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
We are not pawns in your arbitration case, We will not "win" the dispute for you based on non-specific statements there. What you are doing is Gaming system. I am half tempted to add this to the evidence page gaming behavior. Please play by the rules and explain situation at WP:NORN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 02:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."
It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question.
A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of an analysis of the evidence you presented. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
In the event someone would like to accuse me of violating 3RR on a certain page, I would clarify that my intent was really to undo 4 consecutive changes made by a single user. As a result, I was effectively only doing 1 revert instead of 4. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 00:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Bobthefish2. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message. Your
editor review is scheduled to be closed on 29 March 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive-->
to the review page will prevent further automated actions.
AnomieBOT
⚡ 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Message delivered by MediationBot ( talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.
The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the
Mediation Committee.)
Glad that you have been back. I have been badly busy now too. I am not the "main driver" and I saw reasonable suggestions from STSC and PHead128 not long before. The environment of the dispute has made me having less and less confidence on the coming mediation. Thanks for your message. -- Lvhis ( talk) 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes Bob, I also like the dual name solution but Wikipedia does not seem to endorse a dual name very much. In any case, I would support the dual name argument in the mediation process. STSC ( talk) 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Bob, I am too busy to input my whole thought on the argument in one time. Maybe the incontinuity causes some problem. I am still working on it. Thanks.-- Lvhis ( talk) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I was in the mood to confront those edit-warlords in the absence of the mediator, particularly when I saw John Smith's appearing on the scene! STSC ( talk) 10:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Guess what, I was in that mood again 'cos I was bored to dead by that guy! STSC ( talk) 18:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have had enough fun, just can't be bothered with that! STSC ( talk) 03:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's say, it's just his obsession to write in the way he writes. STSC ( talk) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
He must be in a very bad mood! STSC ( talk) 08:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Feezo is asking for an apology. Please Bob, there's no harm in doing it privately on his email or talk page. STSC ( talk) 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
My friend Qwyrxian, I am not trying to be unreasonable here. Since you have decided to proclaim that Tenmei has no civility problem, here are a few excerpts that I would like you to make sense out of (all authored by our friend Tenmei):
With that said, it's definitely possible that you don't find these statements at all offensive. If that's the case, then I will use Tenmei's posts as a case study on how I can better communicate my thoughts inoffensively. You are also welcomed to not reply to this post if you do not want to explain to me why these comments are considered appropriate and civil. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 06:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for letting me know, I'll have some input on that over there later.
STSC (
talk) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It's just another trick, his argument won't stand. STSC ( talk) 01:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Bob, your last message was moved to heading no.23 on my talk page. I replied under no.8 on yours. STSC ( talk) 02:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Bob, that they keep tangling that "penny" thing has been boring me to die (like STSC said before :-)). I have no choice but to build that "very.............y" big wall of text. See if this "verrrrrrry" big wall can more or less help to end that tangling thing or tricks. -- Lvhis ( talk) 03:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That sounds pretty normal. I'd say Qwyrxian's okay even though he can be stubborn (well at least he tries to be reasonable). Go to the naming conventions page if you want to see some of the more ridiculous arguments. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm really tired of it! STSC ( talk) 10:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried to make it clearer that people should discuss the issue at the central page, not at the pages where you pasted the discussion. — Kusma ( t· c) 07:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 10:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
-- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have overlooked your message under Pinnacle Islands on my Talk page, sorry about that. I have set up the e-mail function on Wiki so you're welcome to e-mail anytime through my user page. STSC ( talk) 19:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Good on you (and on your health) that you go away for a while. Just get out of sight of that Humanoid, then you'll be fine! STSC ( talk) 04:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Same as STSC's wish, take care! We have done good job proving that the current Japanese title/name is a POV one. All of the grounds of our opponents argument such as "SI is an English name", "SI is the name mostly used in English" have been proved wrong and groundless. Even the Mediation will mostly end up with failure, the contents of the debate have been there and can be referred later. The POV-title tag shall be on as long as the POV title there and the dispute has not been solved. -- Lvhis ( talk) 04:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob nice to see you back again. Things happened like this way that I am listing in time order:
Feezo announced the mediation formally closed --> John Smith's asked Feezo to remove the POV-tag from the main page SI --> Feezo removed the tag --> I input my confusion on Feezo's talk page --> Feezo asked me to follow the standard procedure as Xe was no longer our mediator any more --> Tenmei removed the POV-tag from the SID page and triggered BDR cycle involving me and Oda Mari, but I would say both of them acted as vandalism when they removed this legal tag --> Feezo locked the SID page on the status the tag removed by Tenmei's 2nd rv --> at meantime I made an edit request for adding back the tag in the protected SI page, and reminded admin Penwhale who ever put the tag on before Feezo removed it --> admin Penwhale granted my request adding the tag back in the main page SI --> Johm Smith's got mad and made a complaint in ANI against Penwhale --> Tenmei input a comment in admin Magog the Ogre's talk page --> Magog the Ogre went to the SID page, and unlocked + reverted it at the status before BDR triggered by Tenmei, and put a sanction there (wonderful one!) --> and then ... you got a call ... here now. Hope I am not confusing you :). -- Lvhis ( talk) 04:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, just to reply to your message earlier: It's good to have you back to counter those edit-warlords as I'm not very active on Wiki due to work commitment. All the best! STSC ( talk) 04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine, Bob; thanks for your concern. STSC ( talk) 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Bobthefish2, I am simply offering those who seem to have a link to Qwyrxian to provide their voice, and, in doing so, I make no mention of how they should voice their opinion, which is important. In this light, I am within policy of Wikipedia, to wit: "...it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Having people who have dealt with Qwyrxian say what they think improves the quality of the nomination board because each viewer then comes away with information of a genuine sense of how Qwyrxian really is in his participation on Wikipedia. If I were to be canvassing, I would have expressly stated something to the effect of the following: "OH, please go to the nomination board and OPPOSE Qwyrxian's nomination for the position of administrator." I didn't do that, so I believe I have done nothing wrong. And, quite honestly, if Qwyrxian believes he has been such a good participant on Wikipedia, he should not have anything to fear about my wanting those with a significant dealing with Qwyrxian to provide their impression of him, good or bad. Thank you for your cooperation in considering my viewpoint! Diligent007 ( talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You've been quoted here [1] in the statement "Bobthefish2, among others, were deprived of the ability to be informed of their opportunity to voice their opinion about the nomination. Bobthefish2 said so himself because of Qwyrxian's sly attempts of manipulating the turnout."
Just letting you know. Dayewalker ( talk) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support | |
Thank you for your question and support at my RfA. I will say, I was surprised to see your support, given our...troubled past...heck, troubled present. I appreciate your willingness to provide a fair assessment. Though we will likely continue to disagree on many things, I hope that I can still fulfill your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
I did. See here. Thanks. -- Lvhis ( talk) 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop goading other editors. Some examples:
I don't know if anyone's mentioned it to you before (probably), but I personally find it to create a very bad atmosphere. I'm not going to threaten to outright block you at this point for it - I'm not a big fan of blocks for incivility unless it becomes uncorrected, but if it does continue, it could eventually lead down that road. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 07:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre ( talk) 08:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob!
The first fellow's "grow a pair" was non-optimal but human, and the tone of his overall statement was more problematic. I just asked him not to repeat a sexist phrase, and took a moment to raise awareness. It was not a big deal, as the first fellow is quite right to say.
I've explained the 2nd and 3rd remarks as plausibly deliberate and not nice and I wanted them to end.
What kind of computing do you do? Not everybody loves algorithms, but is defending Knuth's definitions really buffoonery?
GO TO (as in Considered Harmful) a library was supposed to be funny; I originally wrote "Look at a pirated copy on the internet" but thought better of it. (I would have though Knuth's volumes would be on every optimization person's shelf the way Das Kapital was on every Trot's shelf.)
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, if ArbCom is mainly dealing with user's conduct, for the case of current naming dispute, could it be a subject that some user's conduct such as pushing wiki taking side against NPOV with original researches, double standards, ignoring most close precedent and guideline, etc, resulting in that the dispute cannot be resolved for a long time? -- Lvhis ( talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Qwyrxian ( talk) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advise; I don't have much time on hand so my input was being kept short. STSC ( talk) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm taking this off the workshop talkpage to avoid bloat and because my question is very specific. I'm slightly confused by "you can undo my move": I'm not sure which move you are referring to. Regards -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Bob, thanks for your critiques and suggestions on my input in "Evidence". You are right that it is more important for us to focus on the part "Evidence". -- Lvhis ( talk) 17:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I just realized there is Signpost about ArbCom when I got this [8]. It seems a kind of usefulness by taking a look at the given links. -- Lvhis ( talk) 22:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Definitely needed that. Incidentally, I love masala tea. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Bobthefish2. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Senkaku Islands Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 656 words and 51 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Bob, regarding WP:NOR, what you raised there is not a pure Original research in discussions in deciding whether an RS is right or wrong. That was about interpretations by Japanese RS on a Chinese primary source article. WP's policy WP:SOURCE states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" while this statement tagged "under discussion". This policy also requires " Neutrality" for choosing/using RS. This was why I mainly used two RSs from Japanese authors when debating with Qwyrxian. Qwyrxian's using OR in discussion preventing consensus in edit of the page and may prevent consensus in the naming issue should not be allowable. BTW, the example you raised above has now had Chinese RS for its own interpretation or explanation, see here, reference #11.-- Lvhis ( talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advise; my time is limited but I'll refine my evidence when time allows. STSC ( talk) 13:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You may look at the page: WP:TW. Twinkle is primarily an anti-vandalism tool; it should not be used too often for reverting good-faith edits. STSC ( talk) 02:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Bob, I trust the ArbCom guys are fair-minded people, they are not Fascists or Communists! STSC ( talk) 05:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have got it off my chest, I shall stop commenting from now (I try!). STSC ( talk) 02:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the treatment received by Lvhis was unfair, I'll look into it. STSC ( talk) 02:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Bob, could you reconsider your disagreement on my " proposed principle 4.5.1.1"? OR is a quite severe violation seen by ArbCom, if what I interpreted on the sample Elen advised to us is correct. Although here Q used OR in discussion, it was still severe because preventing consensus and improvement of the page content. The case you mentioned was about if the Japanese RSs interpreting a Chinese RS were neutral or not, and how to express them in the wiki page. That was not OR. If you agreed on my such point, could you strike out your disagreeing comment there? Thanks. -- Lvhis ( talk) 17:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 asked me on my talk page to comment here. I believe that Lvhis is misunderstanding WP:OR, although in a very subtle way that is not uncommon among many Wikipedians (usually newer wikipedians, but even some long-term ones). However, to explain it all will require quite a lot of work and a likely debate on a lot of intricate details, and I don't believe this is the appropriate time for such a discussion. Obviously, Arbcom is free to rule that I did violate OR, in which case I expect I shall receive a topic ban (or worse). But as far as figuring out how to move forward on the articles, I want to wait until later; perhaps we can involve the OR noticeboard at the appropriate time (obviously, during arbitration is not the appropriate time). I am also worried that any slight mistake I might make, or any point I explain with less than perfect clarity, will be instantly copied somewhere into the proceedings as evidence that I am clearly intending to subvert Wikipedia and destroy its neutrality in order to advance my own obvious POV. That is, I don't feel "safe" discussing this now. I promise to revisit the issue if it is still relevant after Arbitration is done (assuming that I and the two of you are still allowed to discuss the issue at that point). Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
We are not pawns in your arbitration case, We will not "win" the dispute for you based on non-specific statements there. What you are doing is Gaming system. I am half tempted to add this to the evidence page gaming behavior. Please play by the rules and explain situation at WP:NORN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 02:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."
It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question.
A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of an analysis of the evidence you presented. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
In the event someone would like to accuse me of violating 3RR on a certain page, I would clarify that my intent was really to undo 4 consecutive changes made by a single user. As a result, I was effectively only doing 1 revert instead of 4. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 00:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Bobthefish2. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)