User talk:Ronz/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Regarding User:Seeyou's MedCab case.

Hello, I am Atyndall and I have taken it upon myself to mediate User:Seeyou's MedCab case here, just letting you know that I have reviewed your side of the story and have compiled a report containing facts and suggestions about the situation, it can be found here. I will also be writing a similar report addressed to User:Famousdog when time permits. Feel free to discuss your report under the provided heading (Discussion of User:Ronz's report) here. Happy editing!

Thanks for the help. I'm refusing to participate until SeeYou actually writes a MedCab case per the directions there, learns to follow WP:TALK, especially WP:CIVIL, and stops using the MedCab case as a forum to harass others. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean by I'm refusing to participate until SeeYou actually writes a MedCab case per the directions there, the case may be all over the place, but I have managed to produce some facts from it and assess the situation. It is important to try and talk to others to help reach consensus and work these things out, I have told User:Seeyou about the policy regarding your changes etc. Just in case you are still unwilling to discuss the matter at or goto the MedCab page I am posting both your and User:Seeyou's reports below where you can discuss them here. If you wish to move the discussion back to the MedCab page feel free to remove the below information and resume the discussion there.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You should also consider archiving your talk page, its very large and hard to navigate (it took a large amount of scrolling to find my entry in your talk page's table of contents), as a rule of thumb, I never let mine go over 30 discussions.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on Wikibreak. What little editing I'm doing is mainly to help resolve problems where there there are few or no other editors involved, or to help with long-standing problems that are at a stalemate.

I'm trying to keep up with the discussions in the MedCab case, and appreciate your help. However, the requirements for MedCab are very clear and Seeyou isn't following them, and is instead using it as a forum to be uncivil and harassing. I refuse to put up with his continued abuse of other editors, and will not participate in a MedCab until this problem is brought under control. Further, he's using MedCab to avoid proper dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I need to find time to archive this page too. It's not a priority for me while on Wikibreak. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Seeyou has stopped with his/her ranting, in fact it stopped about 2 days ago, right now he/she is more mature and is trying to discuss a solution, the suggested solution (for the headings) can be found here. Also, he/she has been warned on his/her talk page about being uncivil, making accusations etc. I have also suggested that User:Seeyou not talk to you until I think you are both calm enough to do so. Remember, if User:Seeyou doesn't follow my suggestions (which he/she should and probably will), she/he will be in the wrong, feel free to reply here or at MedCab. Thankyou.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

However, the requirements for MedCab are very clear and Seeyou isn't following them - I still cannot find any formal medication cabal policy regarding conduct, could you give me a link, it would be a good read. And please give your opinion on the new proposal for the talk page layout here.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe he even tried to meet Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#How_to_list_a_MedCab_request. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Be as that may, User:Seeyou has ceased his/her disruptive behavior for the time being, it would be helpful if you participated in this discussion as your are an integral part of forming an agreement, would it be possible to put feelings aside for a short time and please tell me your opinion on the current heading suggestion and your report. Thankyou.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(F.t.O.R. x/y) is inappropriate, just an abbreviation of what SeeYou was using to harass others. It is soapboxing as well. --Ronz (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the reason I stopped going to the Bates method page. All I've seen from Seeyou as this has progressed are assumptions of bad faith, vendettas, and soapboxing. Hell, he did the same thing with the user-conduct RfA I started! Is this guy a Scientologist or something? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou wants some mention of his headings, you don't like them. Is there a middleground that you are willing to take, say having the For the objective reader heading just below the heading (I know you don't like them, but the point of mediation is consensus, or happy comprimise, and if we can't reach a middlegroup this will never end, there is nothing in policy that says that the FOTR can't be WITH an informative heading, and remember policy can be overulled by common sense)? And I don't quite get how that heading is soapboxing (WP:SOAP), the heading isn't Propaganda, advocacy, recruitment, an Opinion piece, Self-promotion or Advertising. Please come and give your opinion, it is valid and others need to head it, the discussion is very unbalanced with Famousdog and Seeyou's opinions and not yours. I need your help to reach an agreement. Thankyou very much.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not compromising on policy. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not immutable and unchangable, in fact, it is far from it, the policies constantly change. At the top of all accepted Wikipolicy pages (such as WP:TALK) in the infobox, it says [this policy] is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. (important part bolded) and it links to Wikipedia's most important policy IAR, IAR (or Ignore all rules) says that If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it., by viewing essaysby, and endorsed by, other Wikipedian's associated with this rule, IAR in a nutshell means at if we need to avoide a certain part of a rule to help make everyone happy (or at least comprimise), we can. Being as such, stating that you will not comprimise on policy suggests that you think such policy is Law and cannot be broken, as explained above, it is ok to use the exception rule in this circumstance. Also, I do not know if you are ignoring the issue or just have not noticed, but I have asked above for you to please participate in the MedCab case, I really need you to be there, right now both Famousdog and Seeyou have agreed on the current heading suggestion, we just need your opinion (actually, we need some sort of comprimise). Would you be willing to compromise with a heading like this?  Atyndall93 | talk  05:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of Seeyou's talk page modifications

Seeyou pointed out a very important point on his/her talk page. If you have time to revert actions you should have time to discuss them, if you do not have time to discuss you actions (knowing that they will cause arguments) you should refrain from reverting those changes. Currently Seeyou and Famousdog are trying to come to an agreement over the heading styles, Seeyou implemented them, you put them back again. If you wish to be a part of this discussion in deciding what should be done, you are welcome to, but reverting Seeyou's changes to the talk page on sight without discussion (and just citing that they are "soapboxing, uncivil and talk violations") has frustrated Seeyou to the point at which s/he may take this to formal mediation or arbitration which is really not helping the discussion. In your reversion summary you stated that Seeyou's heading is soapboxing; would you please care to elaborate on this. You said that the heading is uncivil; uncivility is defined as personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress., I would not say that "obj. information & facts x/y." next to a heading uncivil. You also called it a talk violation, I don't know why you archived the MedCab debate above and nothing else, but a quote from that page (it can also be seen below) explained how it is alright to bend policy to help make editors happy. Please come back to the discussion, if you are busy and do not have time to come back to the discussion just yet, refrain from reverting Seeyou's edits until you both are ready to discuss them.  Atyndall93 | talk  03:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

“	Wikipedia policy is not immutable and unchangable, in fact, it is far from it, the policies constantly change. At the top of all accepted Wikipolicy pages (such as WP:TALK) in the infobox, it says [this policy] is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. (important part bolded) and it links to Wikipedia's most important policy IAR, IAR (or Ignore all rules) says that If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it., by viewing essaysby, and endorsed by, other Wikipedian's associated with this rule, IAR in a nutshell means at if we need to avoide a certain part of a rule to help make everyone happy (or at least comprimise), we can.	”
—User:Atyndall, User talk:Ronz/Archive 11

RE: Archiving my discussions

Your welcome to, but replying to them helps me to know that you read them and what your views are on them.  Atyndall93 | talk  04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)