User talk:Keitei/Archive1

So tell me something awesome...

This is not a current version of my talk page.
See the current version if you would like to discuss.

If there were a cabal, it would tell you to come say something here. But, There is no cabal. However, you are more then welcome to come ask any questions you like. I dont WP:Bite the new users. -M^ask 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Case[edit]

Are you a mediator in the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23_3753_Cruithne case? (You did use the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23_3753_Cruithne#Mediator_response section) --Fasten 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found your assignment in the assignment table. The list of cases below the table is the authoritative source, not the table. --Fasten 12:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I'm not quite sure how the whole mediation thing works, but I'd love to mediate in any case I'm needed in. I've got the time and the patience, so just tell me how I ought to go about this. Thanks! --Keitei (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Fasten#Mediation:Help --Fasten 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration in progress, case closed?[edit]

Yes, when a the subject of your mediation case has become an arbitration case (and was accepted for arbitration) you can close the mediation case. --Fasten 11:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the closing of the case - I'm not sure which OTRS response you are referring to. The case has gone to Wikimedia's lawyers who, after a brief period of engagement with me, have been quite silent now for a couple of weeks. I'm going to give them another week or so to get back to me - if they don't, I will be bumping up my complaint to the next level. Thanks for your help. Chrisobyrne 14:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You move fast[edit]

Been here for a couple days, and the subject you were supposed to be a mediator for gets bumped up all the way to a RfAr...

Remind me to never ask you for help ;) -M^ask 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :] --Keitei (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Nightmares mediation cabal case[edit]

Hi Keitei,

It appears that I've made a little mistake. The other user involved in the dispute is not User:WolfKeeper but User:Wolfkeeper. Since User:Wolfkeeper signed his/her cposts "WolfKeeper", I just assumed that was his/her username. But actually it's "Wolfkeeper", as can be seen from The Power of Nightmares history. I've updated the mediation cabal entry appropriately. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks again for taking on the case. -- noosphere 06:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real situation is that 'Noosphere' has been repeatedly violating NPOV both by inaccurate precis of a 3hr documentary that actually covers a fair amount of ground; but also by repeatedly removing my contributions without any due cause.

My position is that the documentary very definitely does talk quite a lot about neoconservatives, but that the piece is primarily about politicians, on both sides of the atlantic, as well as terrorists, and the use of fear by politicians and terrorists. It may be noted that neoconservative politicians do not exist in the UK; but that British politicians are mentioned in the piece, for example the third episode, as can be found in the transcript[1]. In addition, the actions of George W. Bush and are mentioned throughout the piece, it may be considered to be in alignment with the central thesis of the piece. George W. Bush is not generally considered to be a neoconservative either.

To quote from the transcript:

VO: But those dreams collapsed, and politicians like Tony Blair became more like managers of public life, their policies determined often by focus groups. But now, the war on terror allowed politicians like Blair to portray a new, grand vision of the future. But this vision was a dark one of imagined threats, and a new force began to drive politics: the fear of an imagined future.

TONY BLAIR : Not a conventional fear about a conventional threat, but the fear that one day these new threats of weapons of mass destruction, rogue states, and international terrorism combine to deliver a catastrophe to our world. And then the shame of knowing that I saw that threat, day after day, and did nothing to stop it.

Tony Blair isn't a neoconservative. We don't even have them in Britain. Much of the last episode is like this. Noosphere has therefore repeatedly misrepresented the documentary in the summary, and has also engaged in bad faith edits by repeatedly removing this well founded generalisation made by myself, and by Adam Curtis the author of the documentary in his own introduction and in the documentary.

I initially assumed good faith (as always), but the evidence has mounted to the contrary, both from his violation of NPOV as well as his excessive reverts. I now no longer ascribe good faith to his actions; indeed my suspicion is that they are motivated by partisan motivations of some kind. Since I'm not American (British), I personally feel I may well be more balanced on this topic; but nevertherless I decided that Adam's own words speak best about what the documentary is about.

As it says in Wikipedia:Assume good faith:

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring."

I very much accused him of lack of good faith, but only when I had reasonable evidence. I therefore do not consider myself to be in violation of this partiular edict, after his multiple reverts and violation of NPOV. Indeed he has also accused me of vandalism. My edits are in no way consistent with that. See: [2]

I consider the current situation where the authors own words summarise the piece- to be a reasonable compromise. If Noosphere has any disagreements with it, he is free to add rather than remove comments in the article (but not the summary), in accordance with correct NPOV. I have absolutely no problem with that. I do have problems when users apparently arbitrarily repeat points within one paragraph whilst removing well founded, more general points about the piece- that actually violates NPOV. Noosphere has not shown the point I made to to be false, and whist I edited his work, I did so in a way that at no point denied that neoconservatives were indeed important in the documentary.WolfKeeper 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to this on the Mediation Cabal case page. Perhaps we should continue there so that we don't clutter up Keitei's talk page? -- noosphere 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal[edit]

Thanks for making me know this initiative. :) Toniher 12:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries & minor edits[edit]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I was being lazy with adding interwiki links. I consider adding [[simple:example]] minor :]. --Keitei (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Heh[edit]

Cool. How does the .js thing work then?

--Joe^Talk! 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the js and here is a screenshot. :] --Keitei (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

erm, i'm gonna look nike such a n00b here but how do you implement that? it looks like a good idea. cheers. --Joe ^Talk!_Esp 17:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just view the source at simple:User:Keitei/monobook.js, copy it, and create a new page with it at User:Jcrook1987/monobook.js. Then do a hard refresh in your browser (MediaWiki has instructions on .js and .css pages), and it should begin to appear. :] --Keitei (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cant get it to work... I have made the page and copy/pasted the text from your .js page but ...nothing happens :( --Joe ^Talk!_Esp ^Work 19:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you've done a hard reload, and keep in mind that it'll only show up on blank user talk pages. I made it do this because I have a very small display, and I only can spare the space when I'll need it. The welcome template is only used on user talk pages that are empty, so try editing one of those and it should show up. --Keitei (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blank user talk pages! Of course! It works fine now - excellent idea. *Goes off to bang head against a wall* --Joe ^Talk!_Esp ^Work 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada Support Talk case[edit]

Hi Keitei, the text that is under dispute is in English. Therefore, although the Wikipedia is Kannada, an exception can be made. I request you to mediate this through somebody from English Wikipedia, in case nobody comes forward from Kannada Wikipedia.

This is wrt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-06_Kannada_Support_Talk to which you have responded here: http://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HPNadig

Regards, Deepix 04:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this problem is on another wikipedia; I don't think we can help. (Keitei on WP:MEDCAB)

The Mediation Cabal is entirely informal. There are no rules against accepting cases from wikipedias in other languages. It's not as if you would interfere with their rules because you do not assume authority, you merely offer advice as a mediator. --Fasten 18:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been addressed on their wikipedia, and I did contact the parties involved. There's been a response to the complaints, and to my knowledge, they are dealing with it there. It also appears that Deepix has been putting forth this same request to many different parties (according to HPN, that is), so I just wanted to keep the discussion where it is relevant. --Keitei (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing...[edit]

Keitei's not ugly, that's really really scary... In fact, it should be banned from Wikipedia! I'm setting myself up to take a hit...--Frenchman113 20:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's disturbing? How randomly creepy this comment is.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Spring celebration[edit]

/ Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(More from Lar...) That essay on your front page is nicely done, and explains things well. Well done, and cheers for taking my suggestion. All the best. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word[edit]

Word. -M^ask 01:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyediting AIDS[edit]

thanks a ton for copyediting the AIDS article; it needed it badly. as it is already a quite heafty and complex topic, it helps greatly to have it not be fettered by poor prose... JoeSmack ^Talk 14:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Bot Framework[edit]

Hi, thanks for applying to use the .NET Bot Framework.Your request has been approved, and you should soon receive instructions as to accessing the source code of the framework. You have also been added to the Spam list for announcement emails regarding the framework. If you do not wish to receive these announcements, please feel free to remove yourself from this list. Messages sent will involve announcements of new versions, features and other important information. Thanks, and enjoy your use of the framework,Werdna bot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C on behalf of Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brave Little Toaster[edit]

Hey Katie, surpised to see you on here at last. I'm shocked and envious that you have a DVD of the Brave Little Toaster. Would you care to let me borrow that for awhile sometime? --InvaderJim42 15:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Brave Little Toaster is teh awesome. And yeah... it took me forever to register an account. Heh. Heh heh. --Keitei (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow![edit]

The level of insight you showed at Rob Church's request for adminship was quite amazing. You'll be sticking around on this wiki for a while, right? Kim Bruning 00:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! While I may not agree, I appreciate it. :] And yes, I do not foresee any falling out between Wikipedia and I in the (near) future. So expect to put up with me. :] --Keitei (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kind of...[edit]

I've never actually reverted a page, but I think I have an opportunity to now, and I want to know how to do it. I'm on the Gonorrhoea page, and the Symptoms section should be reverted back to the revision as of 10:22, May 3, 2006. But I don't want to mess up any of the other sections. How do I do that? Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to this edit page, and copy the section you want reverted. Then on the current page, replace the current section with the old one. I think that would be the best way to do it. --Keitei (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just did that. I hope that's better than all the vandalism that's been going on for over a month! Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation case (Kingdom of Asturias)[edit]

Thanks a lot Keitei. Let´s see if it works.--Xareu bs 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Here's hoping! :] --Keitei (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much![edit]

Thanks for wishing me luck with that problem, I appreciate the thought! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, Chinese box turtle, was selected for DYK![edit]

On June 11, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chinese box turtle, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS featured pic!!!! ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook issues[edit]

You may want to copy user:kylu/monobook.css also, as there are some changes in there needed to make some of my javascript stuff work correctly (especially if you pick up extras.js later)! Ever figure out why live spellcheck doesn't seem to work for you?

ttfn ~Kylu (u|t) 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think it's probably that I'm not using Firefox. Heh. Also, a few functions make the browser crash... I might have to switch to a more stable one. --Keitei, who reserves her right to use crappy software. 05:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell me which functions cause the browser to crash, I can take a look into it and possibly modify the code for you. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mediation (Polish Cabal)[edit]

Thank you for getting back to me. I have posted the information about the case on the Polish Noticeboard, which is watched by many users, including Elonka. I was not sure if I or the mediating cabalist should notify others so I decided to wait and see your reply, especially as it appears some users are treating anything I do as a sign of my bad faith - so I figured out not acting would generate as much heat and be less timeconsuming then the alternative :> If you can, perhaps you could ask the three users I mentioned on the mediation page (User:Elonka, User:Francis Schonken and User:Calgacus) if they would be willing to accept mediation. I am aware mediators can just 'advise', however I believe all of them are acting in good faith and have just by some evil twist of fate interpreted my actions as 'bad faith'. If you could convince them this is the case - or if they are right show me the error of my ways (I certainly accept that I am not perfect and although I don't believe this is the case I admit it is always possible I am mistaken) - I would be greatful. If this will not work, I will think whether it is worth it to bring this case any higher; I personally dislike such 'politics' as a time waste (I'd prefer to be writing aricle instead of this msg, for example) - but at some level the amount of 'personal attacks' and such is such that my wikistress makes working on wiki not fun. I can live with occasional attaks and such, but they managed to keep it high for several days; if they continue - something will have to give.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keitei, thank you for your post on my talk page. Yes, I am aware of the request that Piotrus filed, though I had to dig it up myself, as he did not bother informing any of the people involved about his request, which I found disappointing. Ultimately, it is my opinion that the request was brought in bad faith by Piotrus. He has made no attempt to follow other dispute resolution procedures or work out the perceived issue via the talk pages of the named users (myself included), and in general has just been posting highly emotional and sarcastic messages about the situation on various article and policy talk pages. I found it of particular concern when he was resorting to name-calling, such as accusing me of slander[3] (I replied here: [4]).

When I have attempted to talk to him at his talk page about his name-calling of other users, this has generally just resulted in an escalation of the behavior [5]. I have also found multiple incidents of Piotrus abusing his admin powers, such as moving many Poland-related pages over the last few months without (non-Polish) community consensus [6]. I have recently been challenging several of these page moves (a time-consuming process, chasing after each one of them, but see Talk:Zygmunt III Vasa#Requested move for an example), and have also raised the question that perhaps Piotrus' admin status should be re-examined. When the discussion about page moves was escalated from the Polish community to a cross-cultural discussion page, multiple (non-Polish) editors agreed that the page moves had been improper, and I believe that Piotrus perceived these comments as "Piotrus-bashing", and launched the mediation request. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Need_of_particular_exception.2F_convention_for_Polish_monarchs for details.

In short, though I will freely admit that I am not entirely familiar with the Wikipedia mediation process, it is my opinion that Piotrus has jumped the gun on this, and is filing an emotional request for "mediation", when no one else seems to think that that is the appropriate course at this point. If you feel that mediation would help, I am open to discussing the matter, though I guess my first question would be, "What are we mediating?" Are we trying to analyze someone's behavior, make a determination of whether or not the page moves were appropriate, determine whether or not Piotrus should resign his admin-ship, decide whether or not somebody needs to apologize for name-calling, or what exactly? --Elonka 14:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Elonka! Really, mediation isn't a court, and MedCab even less so! See, while regular mediation is usually a formal process (see WP:MEDCOM), the Mediation Cabal (WP:MEDCAB) is by definition and intent a very informal group. While the amount of bureaucratic overhead seems great (especially on the structure of the case pages themselves) it's actually very, very simple. We could put the entire mediation on the discussion page of that case and it would be just as useful.

The whole idea, basically, is that the mediators are volunteers who try to help two parties help settle disputes. We're not judges, cops, or anything along that line. We simply talk to one side, then the other, and by whatever means we feel are correct, try to get both sides to compromise and settle on a solution. If you said, "I'm no longer taking part in this mediation" all we could do would be to beg you to reconsider. Nobody's going to force anyone to take part.

In short, the mediators at MedCab have no authority at all, we're simply there to try to help the two sides discuss things. If discussion is going nowhere, then the parties should say so, and we'll close our case and suggest you take it to a different venue, such as formal mediation or arbitration.

So, if we're not binding, why bother with MedCab?

Easy. It's better to settle a dispute amicably between the editors involved, even if you need to bring a neutral outsider in, than to have it end up in Arbitration and possibly have someone blocked or restricted from editing certain articles.

As far as what we're mediating, we want you to go to that case page and suggest a solution to the problem. Then, hopefully, someone else does the same, then another, and when we have enough ideas together, we'd like to try to fit them together so ultimately a solution is reached that everyone is happy with. No blame gets placed, nobody has to resign, and if someone needs to apologize for name-calling, hopefully by the end of the session they're aware that it would be helpful, and apologize voluntarily.

Piotrus might've called for mediation early or not, it's not my place to decide, though my honest opinion is that I would rather you come to mediation early to help smooth out problems before they develop into larger, harder to correct problems. Trust me, I'd absolutely love to go into MedCab and see a dozen cases where, after reviewing the pages, it appears that the people simply used the case pages to resolve the issue themselves. :)

If I have to sacrifice my time (and sanity, in some of these cases!) to keep our editors from turning on eachother, though, I'll be more than happy to do so!

~Kylu (u|t) 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (Who has talked way more than was needed, but I hope it helps answer your question!)[reply]

Keitei, the discussion page is getting rather long and unwieldy... I'm not sure of the protocol in these cases, so I figured I'd ask. May I begin an archive, or is that something that you would rather be doing, as mediator? --Elonka 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's protocol, but I'd say archive in a subpage the older discussions (whether 'older' refers to time or to resolution status is subject to your discretion). I'd do it myself, but I've been a bit preoccupied; sorry about that, I'll be back in full by the end of the week. --Keitei (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I can take care of it, I just wanted to check first. Good luck with your other projects. :) --Elonka 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:[edit]

Hello Keitei. I regard your post as bordering on slanderous. If you have an objection to anything I do, please be specific instead of slapping an obnoxious tag on my talk page, accompanied by an even more obnoxious comment, quite unrecognizable to me. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. Thank you. --Keitei (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to look further into the topic you're trying to mediate on. The statement

..."Do not accuse others of having agendas or wanting to "Polonize" Wikipedia. Do not dismiss opinions as being part of their "nationalist" POV, or whatever it is you're doing. Address the arguments and lave the personal attacks and namecalling out of it. "

... is totally unhelpful dictation from someone plainly unexperienced in editing these pages and dealing with this cabal. I'm not the source of suspicion about the activities of the members of the Polish wikipedian's notice board; it has many accusers, including other experienced and high profile editors, so I hope you'll be a little more hesitant before swallowing everything Piotrus tries to feed us. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care. Do not make personal attacks. Period. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for more information. --Keitei (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks. Mind being specific? Are these like my supposed initiation of edit wars, or did I actually make "personal attacks"? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, the thing is, I'm trying to help you, and Piotrus and Elonka and whoever is involved. I'm a "neutral third party" and the substance of the debate isn't my concern. My concern is how you handle it. I ask that you remain civil, and part of being civil is not being rude. I ask that you not make personal attacks, and accusing people of holding a certain political stance is a personal attack. It is my part as mediator in the mediation to ensure that the arguments are being discussed, not those doing the arguing. If you don't want to follow the mediation guidelines, then please just say so and we can recommend this case to ArbCom instead. --Keitei (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility concerns, as discussed:

[7] Removal of talkpage warnings, even if misdirected, may be construed as vandalism:
- Talk page vandalism:
- Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.
[8] "If you were actually offended, rather than pretending to be offended, then I'd suggest you grow some thicker skin or solve whatever complexes causing you problems. - 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)" (See WP:Civil, Examples)
[9] "Thoroughly concur. Ghirlandajo's experience is my own. Desysoping Piotrus is thoroughly in the interests of the wikipedia project. I add further call for a genuine mediation, rather than the farcical one instigated here by the perpetrator. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)" (Calling for desysopping due to personal conflict, again see WP:Civil, Examples)
[10] Specifically "...I imagine your strategy is to get one over on your cabal's "opponents" by getting in there first with a distorted picture of things, would I be right?..." (Again, see WP:Civil, Examples)

These sort of comments are prolific in this editor's edit history. While I doubt there is malicious intent involved (WP:AGF), the systemic rudeness injected into comments is not only disruptive to other editors (and thus Wikipedia) but also has caused additional resource loss due to the requirement of mediation.

Research done as a disinterested third party. If the affected party/parties insist on commenting to me, please keep civility in mind. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 is an entirely legitimate comment, and if it isn't, I don't understand why. You wrote "Calling for desysopping due to personal conflict" as the reason, but you don't know why I was making that "call"; "personal conflict" is the reason you've came up with, so you can't say I'm uncivil because of this. For point 1, I construed that "warning" as vandalism, as it was inaccurate and quite pointless. Did you consider my removal of it as vandalism? If you did, you should say so; I prefer directness to innuendo. As for rudeness, if you can actually call any of those comments rudeness, you'll only find me exercising a lack of politeness to people who have behaved likewise to me. You really don't know the half of it; some of these people have been very rude (I direct my comments to particular users, I am not generally rude), and even send me nasty emails from time to time. Sure, I lack patience sometimes, but if you think sticking over-the-top warnings on my talk page is going to make people more alert, reduce POV pushing, and let me get on with contributing to articles, I'm afraid you're probably mistaken. As for AGF, that's something you do to people you first encounter, not people whose editings you are thoroughly familiar with. If I see a trend affecting the quality of wikipedia, I regard it as more important to point it out than to beat-around-the-bush preaching to the unconvertable and treating the wikipedian community like children. It's kinda funny too that your post there features general (negative) summaries of my behaviour, yet I'm supposedly in the wrong for doing the same. How do you square that? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 refers to desysopping someone, which is inappropriate in-context and is analogous to the "Calling for bans or blocks". Consensus has already suggested that the user in question would make a good admin, and until ArbCom or higher decides otherwise, a comment otherwise is no more than an affront to that user's abilities.

Point 1 was a warning (while possibly insufficiently specific) made in good faith from an established editor (the mediator of your case, in fact). Removal of warnings is verboten and should be replied to if you disagree or find it trivial, not deleted.

From WP:AGF:

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, it only means that one should not ascribe said action to malice. Automatically accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith regardless of their motivation is failing to assume good faith in itself.

If you felt that the other editors actions were malicious and you felt that, as an admin they were failing their duties, then you should consider taking up mediation yourself.

In such a situation where you are approached with incivil behaviour, it's most important to respond in a more civil manner so as to not escalate the situation.

Your quote: "It's kinda funny too that your post there features general (negative) summaries of my behaviour, yet I'm supposedly in the wrong for doing the same. How do you square that?" It's not the examples of behaviour you give that are the problem, it's the method of delivery. That was simply a summary of findings for Keitei, with a summary that more of the same is found in your history. May I suggest stepping back away from the situation first? I'll be blunt: Your posts tend to be combatitive, insisting that you "win" over your "opponent" as opposed to working with the others. I present a finding of fact, with as little narration as possible, yet I'm suddenly an "opponent" also? I'm trying to help Keitei work with those involved, including you, to resolve the situation so it does not have to be brought before higher levels of mediation or arbitration.

Please, consider working with us to correct the situation before it's escalated?

~Kylu (u|t) 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking to me as if I've never edited on wikipedia. If I'm combative, then I guess that's something I'll just have to work on depending on the context. But what makes you think I regard you as an "opponent"? Regarding "Good Faith", this is something I hear lots of editors going on about when their "opponent" returns an insult, but actual "bad faith" comes from insight and experience; it is not, as you may be assuming, a natural state. When a christian priest and rabbi debate religion, it is not "bad faith" to point out to the audience that one is a christian priest, and one is an rabbi; this is surely better than going through the farce of thinking/pretending the discussion is a serious attempt to get at the truth. BTW, all the people I've ever accused of sockpuppetry were shown to have been a sockpuppets. I trust my experience and instinct more than generalized moralizing prescriptions divorved from the context. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that you are combative, nor that you are uncivil. Your posts are, and in the context of a mediation cabal case, we're asking you to try to be more civil. The goal is to facilitate a conflict resolution, and that cannot happen if parties aren't acting civilly to each other. That being said, we cannot force you to change, and if you don't want to, so be it. My point is that it is to everyone's best interest if you do. --Keitei (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]