Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) |
Status | closed |
Request date | 14:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved |
Fnagaton (
talk ·
contribs) Greg_L ( talk · contribs) Headbomb ( talk · contribs) Jeh ( talk · contribs) Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs) Tom94022 ( talk · contribs) Woodstone ( talk · contribs) |
Comment | parties never agreed to mediation. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]
The group of editors favouring discussion would like to have just that: a calm and reasoned discussion, in order to achieve consensus. The present atmosphere on the page makes this impossible without outside mediation. For some background, see this discussion on Rlevse's talk page. The most recent attempt at raising the issue is on the article talk page. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
While the discussion is taking place, it is requested that a {{disputed}} tag be placed to identify the disputed text. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Note, when you click on the above “7:3 vote” link how Thunderbird2 is all alone with his low-value “1” vote; he denies that there is a consensus only because he so strenuously disagrees with the outcome, not because there wasn’t a general consensus on the right course to take for Wikipedia. His problem is just a WP:POINT issue. I’m sorry, but I think the best of all solutions is for Thunderbird2 to accept the consensus view. Failing that, the only viable course is to then solicit binding arbitration.
And a final note. I am solidly of the belief that his desire to place a {disputed} tag on the text he disagrees with is entirely in keeping with his style as of late, which is to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Greg L ( talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to see Thunderbird2 stop using his talk page sand box to continue writing his own version of events when actually the entire page contains misrepresentation of the facts, unsupported claims and unsupported accusations against other editors (This page contains the evidence regarding said misrepresentations). Fnag aton 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
curious question: Is this a case where the introduction of the new text would improve a certain set of articles? I'm on another case where an MOS guideline is in conflict with another. Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Nutshell: Yes, Xavexgoem, the new guideline improves pretty much all computer-related articles. There is no conflict within MOSNUM nor with MOS. During the debate process and some ensuing editwarring, we had several mediators exert their subtle influence to facilitate the new guideline being adopted and administrators magically interceded to lock down MOSNUM in similarly helpful ways.
Details: All computer manufacturers use the conventional prefixes like “megabyte (MB” and “kilobyte (KB)” when communicating to their customer base. They do so in their advertisements, brochures, packaging, and owners manuals. In turn, all general-interest computer publications use the same terminology. Not surprisingly, all professional print encyclopedias (both in their print and on-line versions) also go with the flow and use the terminology that is well recognized by computer users (“megabyte”).
In 1999, the IEC proposed new terminology to address an ambiguity in the use of the conventional prefixes. This is because kilobyte means 1024 bytes for RAM and 1000 bytes for hard drives. The distinction rarely causes any practical problems in real life. The IEC proposal introduced new terminology like “mebibyte (MiB)” “kibibyte (KiB)”, “kibibit”, etc.
Three years ago, Wikipedia allowed the use of the IEC prefixes and an editor Sarenne, who is now banned for life, changed hundreds of Wikipedia’s articles. Then a handful of editors, lead by an administrator— Omegatron—blocked changing the articles back. After editwarring, it was finally agreed that existing articles wouldn’t be changed from one standard to another, thus leaving Wikipedia in a most unsatisfactory state of affairs where the term “kilobyte” and “megabyte” meant one specific thing in some articles, and yet another meaning in still other articles. Still more troubling, is that even the proponents of the IEC prefixes agreed in a unanimous, 12:0 poll that the IEC prefixes aren’t even recognized by our readership. I can tell you that I’ve been using computers since 1982 and until I came to Wikipedia, I never saw “3 GiB of RAM” before. The consensus view was that Wikipedia was doing no one a service by our being all alone with our use of the IEC prefixes. Notwithstanding our three year experiment with using them, the industry (and the rest of the world) was not following Wikipedia’s lead on this issue. We agreed that notwithstanding the shortcomings of the conventional prefixes, the computing industry and the rest of the real world uses them and that is what readers are familiar with. Accordingly, the 7:3 consensus vote was to follow real-world practices and use only the conventional prefixes, disambiguating their ambiguous 1024/1000 meaning where necessary. We felt that his guideline best adheres to the basic principle of technical writing, which is to communicate with minimal confusion to our target audience. Clearly, a 7:3 vote is not unanimous. Does a Wikipedia-style “consensus” have to be unanimous today? No, and it never did. What is required for a general consensus is that each editors’ views were expressed and considered and in this case, 81 straight days of continuous debate was more than adequate to accomplish this.
In light of this reality and the fact that there were more archives on Talk:MOSNUM on this single issue than any other (14, and soon to be 15) and the problem wasn’t going away, the consensus view was that we volunteer Wikipedia editors were not somehow more *enlightened* than the professional editors at PC World and Encyclopedia Britannica and maybe we should look towards their practices for guidance. That resulted in our 7:3 vote. The complete history of the debate is now a matter of record. It comprised nearly three solid months of continuous debate and discussion and included innumerable polls and votes in an effort to identify common ground and agree on the basic facts. Debate started on Archive B8 on 18 March 2008 and continued without a break until Archive B13 when the new guideline was uploaded on about 6 June. Note, when you click on and examine the 7:3 consensus vote, that Thunderbird2 is all alone there with his low-value “1” vote. More than anyone else, he dislikes the outcome of the vote. That is why we are here: because he refuses to recognize it as a legitimate consensus.
I have a “problem” with Thunderbird because early on, he painted himself as a moderate, who couldn’t make up his mind and was sitting on the fence on this issue. When I was the lead proponent of a new policy called “ Follow current literature”, which accomplished the same end as what we eventually ended up with, he asked for some concessions in the wording by writing “To gain my support you need to make clear that the MiB does have a valuable role to play.” He also asked for not mentioning something known as the “uno”. After I gave him precisely what he asked for, he reciprocated in the end with a “1” vote on a scale of 0 to 4. I was baffled at first. But, far from his being a moderate who is sitting on the fence and is undecided and is just getting concessions in wording to mollify other, more extreme editors, Thunderbird’s behavior consistently met the pattern of a someone who was actually that most extreme of editors in so far as his support for the IEC prefixes and his opposition to following the rest of the world. I saw this as a consistent pattern (argue like a moderate but fail to reciprocate as promised). He seemingly pretended to be for one thing but then did another. Only after the new guideline was posted, did he “come out of the closet” so to speak, and argue like he votes. Headbomb, Fnagaton, and I have all been quite frustrated by Thunderbird2’s refusal or inability to directly address the issues we’ve put to him. It seems to us that this amounts to nothing more than a WP:POINT problem. He seems to be somewhat obsessed with this issue. He maintains a profoundly detailed blow-by-blow of all that is related to this issue and is maintaining this list of every single article that has been “damaged” as a result of the new guideline. The result has been a consistent propensity to edit against consensus and be disruptive. Greg L ( talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't care that a vote 2 months ago said that people were against the deprecation of IEC units.” … Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that Tom94022 didn’t elect to participate whatsoever in the entire second half of the 81-day discussions and votes leading up to the new guideline, I don’t believe he has a leg to stand on when he comes here to complain about the outcome. As far as I’m concerned, he is pretty much just a spectator who has rushed down onto the field after a game to complain about the 7:3 score on the scoreboard. While it may be unfortunate that Tom94022 chose not to participate in the last 41 days of the process, he has no one but himself to blame for that. Further, his situation is not at all unique. Many “support” and “oppose” editors dropped in and out during the process. Some probably dropped out because they felt their arguments had been discredited. Others simply didn’t have the stomach for the lengthy proceedings and left for happier editing waters. We can’t force editors to participate from start to finish. We are here to simply settle whether or not the current guideline had a proper consensus when it was adopted. Greg L ( talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that User:Rilak had voted for Follow Current Literature and also didn’t stick around to vote on the current guideline. Had he done so, he undoubtedly would have voted “support” for what replaced FCL. So as I stated above—but which you seem to ignore again and again—is your situation is not unique to you as an individual nor as a class of voter.
And also like I stated before, unless you can present us with your “ I am really, really special”-license for inspection, no policy on Wikipedia says that we have to turn the clock back and start all over because you missed out! Now, if I am in error on this last point, please point to a current Wikipedia policy that states as much. Otherwise, please, please stop hounding us on how you think Wikipedia should have ground to a halt the day you last participated on MOSNUM. Or are you suggesting there can be no logical and just consensus if you don’t participate in it? Or are you suggesting that you alone, posses a unique capability that would have enabled you to have successfully carried the “logic” of that earlier vote forward and forestall what eventually happened over two months later—a unique mental prowess that none of the other “oppose” editors you left to fend for themselves possessed? All these conclusions are implicit in your repeated demands that we turn the clock back to the last vote in which you participated. You have no one to blame but yourself if you actually thought the issue had been settle with a vote conducted in late March because you continued to participate in debate until the end of April and knew—or should have known—that the issue was clearly still active the day you lost interest.
The only question at hand here for the mediator is whether or not the final vote constituted a general consensus and was properly arrived at. I declare that your position, when you wrote above as follows:
I suggest that such willful ignoring of a clearly expressed opinion [the vote two months prior] without further consultation is the very opposite of consensus building.
And please stop throwing around unfounded accusations of myself and others here (Headbomb) being uncivil. Incivility is attacking the editor in rude ways and/or being dishonest in one’s dealings with others. Exposing the fallacies of another editor’s arguments and revealing them for what they are is simple debate. You and T-bird do not have the right to repeat falsehoods and illogical statements with impunity; your statements can—and will—be rebutted.
In fact if you read up on Engaging in incivility, you will find that “Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold” and “deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors” really does constitute incivility. Try sticking to the facts here please.
Finally, your efforts to pull the rug out of other editors’ arguments by throwing around unfounded accusations of incivility are profoundly transparent and won’t get you anywhere. Prove there was no consensus or hold your peace. Merely citing that ‘there had been a vote one third of the way into the debate and you missed out of all those later votes’ doesn’t cut it. Not in the least. Greg L ( talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
In order to limit the bickering, and the 20498-people-commenting-at-once phenomena, I propose that the two sides elect one spokesperson each and that only that spokesperson can comment here. This would make things far easier would keep the debate well structured. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: Please note Xavexgoem’s question above. Adios. Greg L ( talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this debate is solely about the uploading of the IEC section, including all events prior to and including June 7th. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
As regards his first request: “The group of editors favouring discussion would like to have … a calm and reasoned discussion in order to achieve consensus.” I think we’ve amply demonstrated that that this argument is specious and is purely a problem with WP:POINT. We already achieved a consensus; it’s just that the consensus view was for a guideline he vehemently disagrees with and won’t accept. As regards point #2, that’s just wikilawyering and is disruptive. Both desires originate from T-bird’s refusal to accept the reality that the current MOSNUM guideline governing expressing the values of computer storage was a consensus that had been properly arrived at. I suggest that the mediator consider just this fundamental point: was there or was there not a general consensus for the adoption of the current guideline. Greg L ( talk) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, im just wondering if this dispute still requires mediation? «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, if the issue still reuqires mediation i advise you to take it to formal mediation. it seems no one is willing to take this case here (quite frankly i dont blame them) ;) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) |
Status | closed |
Request date | 14:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved |
Fnagaton (
talk ·
contribs) Greg_L ( talk · contribs) Headbomb ( talk · contribs) Jeh ( talk · contribs) Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs) Tom94022 ( talk · contribs) Woodstone ( talk · contribs) |
Comment | parties never agreed to mediation. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]
The group of editors favouring discussion would like to have just that: a calm and reasoned discussion, in order to achieve consensus. The present atmosphere on the page makes this impossible without outside mediation. For some background, see this discussion on Rlevse's talk page. The most recent attempt at raising the issue is on the article talk page. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
While the discussion is taking place, it is requested that a {{disputed}} tag be placed to identify the disputed text. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Note, when you click on the above “7:3 vote” link how Thunderbird2 is all alone with his low-value “1” vote; he denies that there is a consensus only because he so strenuously disagrees with the outcome, not because there wasn’t a general consensus on the right course to take for Wikipedia. His problem is just a WP:POINT issue. I’m sorry, but I think the best of all solutions is for Thunderbird2 to accept the consensus view. Failing that, the only viable course is to then solicit binding arbitration.
And a final note. I am solidly of the belief that his desire to place a {disputed} tag on the text he disagrees with is entirely in keeping with his style as of late, which is to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Greg L ( talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to see Thunderbird2 stop using his talk page sand box to continue writing his own version of events when actually the entire page contains misrepresentation of the facts, unsupported claims and unsupported accusations against other editors (This page contains the evidence regarding said misrepresentations). Fnag aton 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
curious question: Is this a case where the introduction of the new text would improve a certain set of articles? I'm on another case where an MOS guideline is in conflict with another. Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Nutshell: Yes, Xavexgoem, the new guideline improves pretty much all computer-related articles. There is no conflict within MOSNUM nor with MOS. During the debate process and some ensuing editwarring, we had several mediators exert their subtle influence to facilitate the new guideline being adopted and administrators magically interceded to lock down MOSNUM in similarly helpful ways.
Details: All computer manufacturers use the conventional prefixes like “megabyte (MB” and “kilobyte (KB)” when communicating to their customer base. They do so in their advertisements, brochures, packaging, and owners manuals. In turn, all general-interest computer publications use the same terminology. Not surprisingly, all professional print encyclopedias (both in their print and on-line versions) also go with the flow and use the terminology that is well recognized by computer users (“megabyte”).
In 1999, the IEC proposed new terminology to address an ambiguity in the use of the conventional prefixes. This is because kilobyte means 1024 bytes for RAM and 1000 bytes for hard drives. The distinction rarely causes any practical problems in real life. The IEC proposal introduced new terminology like “mebibyte (MiB)” “kibibyte (KiB)”, “kibibit”, etc.
Three years ago, Wikipedia allowed the use of the IEC prefixes and an editor Sarenne, who is now banned for life, changed hundreds of Wikipedia’s articles. Then a handful of editors, lead by an administrator— Omegatron—blocked changing the articles back. After editwarring, it was finally agreed that existing articles wouldn’t be changed from one standard to another, thus leaving Wikipedia in a most unsatisfactory state of affairs where the term “kilobyte” and “megabyte” meant one specific thing in some articles, and yet another meaning in still other articles. Still more troubling, is that even the proponents of the IEC prefixes agreed in a unanimous, 12:0 poll that the IEC prefixes aren’t even recognized by our readership. I can tell you that I’ve been using computers since 1982 and until I came to Wikipedia, I never saw “3 GiB of RAM” before. The consensus view was that Wikipedia was doing no one a service by our being all alone with our use of the IEC prefixes. Notwithstanding our three year experiment with using them, the industry (and the rest of the world) was not following Wikipedia’s lead on this issue. We agreed that notwithstanding the shortcomings of the conventional prefixes, the computing industry and the rest of the real world uses them and that is what readers are familiar with. Accordingly, the 7:3 consensus vote was to follow real-world practices and use only the conventional prefixes, disambiguating their ambiguous 1024/1000 meaning where necessary. We felt that his guideline best adheres to the basic principle of technical writing, which is to communicate with minimal confusion to our target audience. Clearly, a 7:3 vote is not unanimous. Does a Wikipedia-style “consensus” have to be unanimous today? No, and it never did. What is required for a general consensus is that each editors’ views were expressed and considered and in this case, 81 straight days of continuous debate was more than adequate to accomplish this.
In light of this reality and the fact that there were more archives on Talk:MOSNUM on this single issue than any other (14, and soon to be 15) and the problem wasn’t going away, the consensus view was that we volunteer Wikipedia editors were not somehow more *enlightened* than the professional editors at PC World and Encyclopedia Britannica and maybe we should look towards their practices for guidance. That resulted in our 7:3 vote. The complete history of the debate is now a matter of record. It comprised nearly three solid months of continuous debate and discussion and included innumerable polls and votes in an effort to identify common ground and agree on the basic facts. Debate started on Archive B8 on 18 March 2008 and continued without a break until Archive B13 when the new guideline was uploaded on about 6 June. Note, when you click on and examine the 7:3 consensus vote, that Thunderbird2 is all alone there with his low-value “1” vote. More than anyone else, he dislikes the outcome of the vote. That is why we are here: because he refuses to recognize it as a legitimate consensus.
I have a “problem” with Thunderbird because early on, he painted himself as a moderate, who couldn’t make up his mind and was sitting on the fence on this issue. When I was the lead proponent of a new policy called “ Follow current literature”, which accomplished the same end as what we eventually ended up with, he asked for some concessions in the wording by writing “To gain my support you need to make clear that the MiB does have a valuable role to play.” He also asked for not mentioning something known as the “uno”. After I gave him precisely what he asked for, he reciprocated in the end with a “1” vote on a scale of 0 to 4. I was baffled at first. But, far from his being a moderate who is sitting on the fence and is undecided and is just getting concessions in wording to mollify other, more extreme editors, Thunderbird’s behavior consistently met the pattern of a someone who was actually that most extreme of editors in so far as his support for the IEC prefixes and his opposition to following the rest of the world. I saw this as a consistent pattern (argue like a moderate but fail to reciprocate as promised). He seemingly pretended to be for one thing but then did another. Only after the new guideline was posted, did he “come out of the closet” so to speak, and argue like he votes. Headbomb, Fnagaton, and I have all been quite frustrated by Thunderbird2’s refusal or inability to directly address the issues we’ve put to him. It seems to us that this amounts to nothing more than a WP:POINT problem. He seems to be somewhat obsessed with this issue. He maintains a profoundly detailed blow-by-blow of all that is related to this issue and is maintaining this list of every single article that has been “damaged” as a result of the new guideline. The result has been a consistent propensity to edit against consensus and be disruptive. Greg L ( talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't care that a vote 2 months ago said that people were against the deprecation of IEC units.” … Headbomb ( ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that Tom94022 didn’t elect to participate whatsoever in the entire second half of the 81-day discussions and votes leading up to the new guideline, I don’t believe he has a leg to stand on when he comes here to complain about the outcome. As far as I’m concerned, he is pretty much just a spectator who has rushed down onto the field after a game to complain about the 7:3 score on the scoreboard. While it may be unfortunate that Tom94022 chose not to participate in the last 41 days of the process, he has no one but himself to blame for that. Further, his situation is not at all unique. Many “support” and “oppose” editors dropped in and out during the process. Some probably dropped out because they felt their arguments had been discredited. Others simply didn’t have the stomach for the lengthy proceedings and left for happier editing waters. We can’t force editors to participate from start to finish. We are here to simply settle whether or not the current guideline had a proper consensus when it was adopted. Greg L ( talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that User:Rilak had voted for Follow Current Literature and also didn’t stick around to vote on the current guideline. Had he done so, he undoubtedly would have voted “support” for what replaced FCL. So as I stated above—but which you seem to ignore again and again—is your situation is not unique to you as an individual nor as a class of voter.
And also like I stated before, unless you can present us with your “ I am really, really special”-license for inspection, no policy on Wikipedia says that we have to turn the clock back and start all over because you missed out! Now, if I am in error on this last point, please point to a current Wikipedia policy that states as much. Otherwise, please, please stop hounding us on how you think Wikipedia should have ground to a halt the day you last participated on MOSNUM. Or are you suggesting there can be no logical and just consensus if you don’t participate in it? Or are you suggesting that you alone, posses a unique capability that would have enabled you to have successfully carried the “logic” of that earlier vote forward and forestall what eventually happened over two months later—a unique mental prowess that none of the other “oppose” editors you left to fend for themselves possessed? All these conclusions are implicit in your repeated demands that we turn the clock back to the last vote in which you participated. You have no one to blame but yourself if you actually thought the issue had been settle with a vote conducted in late March because you continued to participate in debate until the end of April and knew—or should have known—that the issue was clearly still active the day you lost interest.
The only question at hand here for the mediator is whether or not the final vote constituted a general consensus and was properly arrived at. I declare that your position, when you wrote above as follows:
I suggest that such willful ignoring of a clearly expressed opinion [the vote two months prior] without further consultation is the very opposite of consensus building.
And please stop throwing around unfounded accusations of myself and others here (Headbomb) being uncivil. Incivility is attacking the editor in rude ways and/or being dishonest in one’s dealings with others. Exposing the fallacies of another editor’s arguments and revealing them for what they are is simple debate. You and T-bird do not have the right to repeat falsehoods and illogical statements with impunity; your statements can—and will—be rebutted.
In fact if you read up on Engaging in incivility, you will find that “Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold” and “deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors” really does constitute incivility. Try sticking to the facts here please.
Finally, your efforts to pull the rug out of other editors’ arguments by throwing around unfounded accusations of incivility are profoundly transparent and won’t get you anywhere. Prove there was no consensus or hold your peace. Merely citing that ‘there had been a vote one third of the way into the debate and you missed out of all those later votes’ doesn’t cut it. Not in the least. Greg L ( talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
In order to limit the bickering, and the 20498-people-commenting-at-once phenomena, I propose that the two sides elect one spokesperson each and that only that spokesperson can comment here. This would make things far easier would keep the debate well structured. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: Please note Xavexgoem’s question above. Adios. Greg L ( talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this debate is solely about the uploading of the IEC section, including all events prior to and including June 7th. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
As regards his first request: “The group of editors favouring discussion would like to have … a calm and reasoned discussion in order to achieve consensus.” I think we’ve amply demonstrated that that this argument is specious and is purely a problem with WP:POINT. We already achieved a consensus; it’s just that the consensus view was for a guideline he vehemently disagrees with and won’t accept. As regards point #2, that’s just wikilawyering and is disruptive. Both desires originate from T-bird’s refusal to accept the reality that the current MOSNUM guideline governing expressing the values of computer storage was a consensus that had been properly arrived at. I suggest that the mediator consider just this fundamental point: was there or was there not a general consensus for the adoption of the current guideline. Greg L ( talk) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, im just wondering if this dispute still requires mediation? «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, if the issue still reuqires mediation i advise you to take it to formal mediation. it seems no one is willing to take this case here (quite frankly i dont blame them) ;) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)