Previous discussions

1. /Archive 1
2. /Archive 2
3. /Archive 3
4. /Archive 4

Please add your comments at the bottom of the page

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Quilmes Partido Playboy Lanús The Greek Passion Zebra (band) Moreno Partido Avellaneda Random access memory Wolfgang Mommsen Arcadocypriot Optative mood San Fernando Partido Las Flores, Buenos Aires Juan Díaz de Solís Lanús Partido Homeric Greek Mick Woodmansey Ear Yevanic language

Cleanup Alex Rodriguez Doxography Threnody Merge Mass noun Radio Frequency Identification Constitutional democracy Add Sources Fastway (band) Tom Anderson (MySpace) Zorbas Wikify Institute for Creation Research Maulana Hali Maniyani Expand Ejaculation USSR Border Troops Prince (musician)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot, you worked horribly in my case. Only a few Argentina-related articles and some greek-related, but nothing else. I'll tell your creator about this. --Neigel von Teighen 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neigel! The situation was a little frustrated. Thankfully I made a backup of some of the work. i'm just about to run some other things. But in short: I wanted to create a usefull category, but nobody wanted it. :( I did receive an email from someone concerning supposed changes that will be happening to CfD nominations and everything. --CyclePat 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmm... The category seems a bit useless to me, honestly... though I can see the reasons why you want it. --Neigel von Teighen 11:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! honestly, that's the first best discussion I've had on this. You give your opinion all while meeting me half-way. Thank you. I think I have other things I will want to do and I will continue to work at finding a solution. This website had the idea.[1] and so did this one which has an interactive map[2]. Yes! most people also thought like you that the category was useless (see CfD) and the deletion review seems to have followed proper process[3]. However, what unevered me was the way the entire thing went down and as explained in the Cities in the UTC CfD. Essentially, I though it was usefull but the process was horrible. Perhaps the administrator that deleted the category could use a little watching and in the future a 3rd oppinion on the way he deletes categories!!. For obvious reason I don't see me doing it because he doesn't want to really talk to me after I tried to do an RfC on his conduct. That page was deleted. And now, from just one stupid lack of procedure, I've ended up at the point where I feel we could probably have to go higher. Thank you!--CyclePat 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the problem I saw is that the criteria is to vague. A category should be a small box with related articles... but if the criteria used is timezone, you might have lots of cities absolutely unrelated except for that small fact! Is almost a trivia or factoid... (I remember a case where someone wanted to realted A. Lincoln with C. Darwin because both were born at the same date). Hope I helped! Can I close the case? Ah, and please answer the followup to evaluate me... --Neigel von Teighen 14:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Personnally, we already do that here on wikipedia. That's why we call it en encyclopedia. Cyclo refers to cycling the information and self-referencing. An example consist of dissambiguation pages or even lists. Here is a list of countries. This is a list of countries in the world. A list of cities would be even larger. My general experience is saying we must have a common denominator for the cities but after the UTC timezone "scandal" it appears that such a common denominator is to specific. Do you have any other common denominators... Having a list of cities in the world to me appears to be useless because it's going to be 5000+:1. But they could be in alphabetical order? Or having a list of cities by country? I don't know help me out here because we need to have a list of all the cities. UTC was a managable list. Unfortunatelly, people don't want that. Perhaps List of cities will be the next step to take even though it will leave people wondering in what country or time they are located. Anyway... Thanks for the help. I do have a couple other things I need to do and unfortunatelly, I'll probably be back in 1 month or so doing about the same thing, facing the hord of administrators that just don't like the fact that cities can also be a common denominatory. Finally, I've voiced my opinion and as I said, I tried an RfC, (which was deleted... and I objected... I know what steps to take) My main issue, as I said was with the process and how VoA works. Take for exemple how he closed the Essjay discusion only after a couple minutes of a votes. So... anyway. Unless I missed the boat here. I think we can close it. Thank you. --CyclePat 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close it, then. Yes, I understand what you mean, though I absolute disagree with you. I know the mess there is currently around "Cities" and not just in categories (I fought for official denomination standards on Buenos Aires), but I really believe UTC is not the right criteria. OK, bad luck maybe; next time will be better. Cheers! --Neigel von Teighen 09:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 17:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I alone in thinking this stinks to high heaven? Am I overreacting? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not overreacting. We must fight this til the end... but, if we lose the fight, we retire honorfully without any further complaints. AMA was born from consensus and consensus can suddenly kill us as well. Wikipedia game's rules are this way and we have accepted them. I contacted Jimbo for his opinion.

I strongly ask you to "spam" all members, but making them clear that we must fight during the MfD, not after a subsequent deletion. That we will not try to recreate AMA under alternative names like the old OMA (Office of...) or whatever. Any action like that will make the situation worser. Maybe a request for undeletion... the idea is to move according to WP's policies. (Damn it! Why nobody heard me on January 2006? I told you all we needed to ask for "official status" when we had a more-friendly ArbCom half way to support us!).

Maybe, we really are worth zero and should dissappear. Sorry, I'm a good argentinean: I am an hyper-optimist and hyper-fatalist. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 09:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your delete comment I have to disagree on one point the whole join a team or leave. To me this is not a good idea as it to me may cuase good advocates to leave the AMA. As for the co-ordinators/Deputy side I was going ot recomend that these "possions" be done a way with and have a structure similar ot the MEDCAB. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 19:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a further discussion; we must focus on this MfD first. Anyway, I think good AMA advocates will the first in creating teams... and my idea should progressively applied with a "buffer" team for those who don't know what team to join/create but want to, I don't want it to do it suddenly. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 07:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason I'm against the requiring team idea is because it would be overly bureaucratic and if the MfD is keep or No Consensus we could be MfDed again because of it. We would fall into the same trap that is affecting us now. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: the idea is that each team would have to organize itself under consensus, rather than having a formal leadership. This will reduce bureaucracy as deputies will dissappear; their functions should be taken by teams and executed by consensus... as WP does in a greater scale. AMA Coordination would be in charge of 1) coordinating teams (no longer to be the head of AMA advocates), 2) regulating and mantaining the system working (i.e. intervenes a team that as a problem focus, merge teams and/or split them in agreement with team-members... in a word: administrate) and 3) mantain/open relationships with ArbCom and MedCom. The "philosophy" I propose is that smaller troops move quicker... and Coordinator will mantain them working in association.

The only concern I have is that maybe it sounds unrealistic for the current AMA situation. Anyway, I repeat: this is a discussion to be held at least two or three months after this MfD. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 15:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd almost say that no, it should happen immediately after the MFD. In fact, maybe it should be proposed now. But I can't nail down exactly what is causing so many people to oppose AMA. I've heard that it is "too bureaucratic", and perhaps it did get that way with the new crop of people and the focus on deputies. I've heard that maybe there are some problem advocates. And I've also heard -- and this is the one I have most issue with -- is that AMA involvement caused some cases to go ways people didn't like. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 16:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to find cause, apart from the obvious bad performance of AMA... but a bad performance of some advocates (including myself) does not have such a reaction. Maybe, an overreaction... Communities are quite strange and umpredictable bodies. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alothough I'm against the idea of requireing advocate team membership (not against the teams however) I do have an idea for one that would handle the simple cases and the ones that require help with polices and guidlines on the Wiki. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you a head up the MfD closed as a no consenus. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: ) (Now, we have work to do inside AMA). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 09:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;)Yep, I'm going to be setting up my idea for a new team in a few. Going to be one for memebrs who have policy disputes or just need advise on how to handle issues on Wikipedia. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 13:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I have done my "Descentralized" AMA proposal on the AMA talk. Just to start discussing it. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 13:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have resigned from the possion as Deputy CoOrdinator ( I might go for the CoOrdinator spot not sure yet) that leve Martinp23 to resign and that will leave the CoOrdinator. I agree with the handbook /guide is the first priority. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've done right. Now, let's work on that handbook. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 10:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, lets get to work Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I click on your name and assumed I was getting your talk page so I posted in the wrong place. Here is what I meant to post to you. (copied)

Read your note to Steve. I don't need help. I am doing just fine. I thought you knew that as I posted that on the AMA talk page (or whatever it is) where Steve again told me I was whining and everything was my own fault and no wonder I was having a miserable time on Wikipedia. You posted there too, so I assumed you read the post.

I explained there that I have had no problems on Wikipedia since the sockpuppet ring was shut down. Not only that I have gained many friends who now guard my pages from vandalism, and prevented Jefferson Anderson (now using anonymous proxies) from vandalising me and keep me informed. I am being protected now. I have received several Barnstars in the last few months and have helped several articles reach Feature Article status and am working on several more.

I just want to know what is being "investigated", why he chose to put the case "under investigation" and then did nothing, why he refuses to communicate with me, when will the investigation end, and will I ever be given any feedback from AMA as so far I have received none, except his comments about me whining on the talk page. AMA was a bad experience, as one Advocate keep spreading my name around Wikipedia asking about me, and continued to do so after you and I each told him it was doing me more harm. Then he withdrew without telling me nor giving me any feedback. Steve put my case "under investigation" while the Arbitration was still going on, and has done nothing as far as I can tell. I feel my personal laundry has been aired in public by an incompetent AMA.

I guess if AMA is deleted then at least my case "under investigation" will go away. That is one way of getting rid of a horrible experience.

What makes you thing I still need help?

Sincerely, Mattisse 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have sent you an email a minute ago! Please read it before this post). Oh, I thought you wanted help! OK, the "problem" with your case still open is that maybe someone could propose that open cases should remain opened. I'll close it, but after waiting one or two days for Steve's reply. I'm almost acting as a Coordinator and I never liked administrative tasks. Anyway, congratulations!! --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 13:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me where my case actually is? I cannot find that page anymore and lost my bookmark of it. Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know your viewpoint on my proposal at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Meeting and at WT:AMA. I've proposed that off-wiki communication (by e-mail, IRC, etc) between advocate and advocee should be strongly discouraged. This is to dispell the negative "wikilawyerish" image that the AMA has among some parts of the Wikipedia community, and because I think that in the interests of fairness and impartiality, AMA dispute resolution should be an open process, with all communication available for the community to view. Although I'm not suggesting that any advocates use confidential communication to advise their advocees on gaming the system, I think it's clear that that's precisely what some users are accusing us of. So what do you think of my proposal? It seems like you're currently working harder than anyone else in improving and restructuring the AMA, so I thought you might be interested. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Thank you for the compliment... but I'm not the only one: look Steve and Aeon and the non-AMA Nicholas. They're working harder than I do). I was against it because of privacy issues, but changed my mind when saw that MedCom (who could argue more legitimely on privacy) took this step. It's easy: if an advocate is doing well, why should he fear? This should make us less "opaque" (in Nicholas' words). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned after having been previously driven away by the behavior of several Freemasonic users (see [4] for my goodbye notice and reasons). I've decided not to let these users bully me but would like some assistance. They continuously back each other up, while I have no one to assist me or to observe how I am being treated by them. My request is at [5]. Jefferson Anderson 19:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm currently in another case. Yours, --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 11:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I checked the page and your status showed available. You might want to change that. In any case, Aeon1006 has volunteered and I am sure he will also do an excellent job. Jefferson Anderson 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JA: good luck! Ah, and never trust on my status (always forget to change it). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case, which you were named as a party due to being an advocate of another editor, has closed. The decision is as follows:

AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm), and Fadix are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. Aivazovsky, Atabek, Azerbaijani, Dacy69, Elsanaturk, Eupator, Fedayee, Grandmaster, ROOB323 and TigranTheGreat are each placed on standard revert parole; each is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and required to discuss any content reversions on the article talkpage. ROOB323 is also placed on civility parole for 1 year.

You may review the full decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've agreed to accept the advocacy on this. Let me know how we go from here. The edits being made are original research, one advocate has already pulled out of this case and I'm not sure how you see this moving forwards. I raised the case on the mailing list and it was confirmed there that what was being added was original research. A claim is being made based on primary source, namely that and a search of WorldCat reveals that as of 2006 Taylor Allderdice remains one of fewer than sixty high schools in the world to have its newspaper archived on microfilm in a major library. This is original research pure and simple, and requires a secondary source to be added.

The claim that "During the 1970's, the school considered the Foreword to be "Serving Allderdice High School and the community," stating that it reached more than 5000 readers." is likewise original research in the first part, we have n secondary source stating that the school considered the Foreword to be "Serving Allderdice High School and the community, it's introducing bias and original research.

Use of the term archival distinction is biased. Who declares it a distinction? There's no secondary source, so we don't say it.

Regarding how the the school represents the Foreword as "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School," using it on the school's web site to document its fund raising efforts, the school board's politics, and the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school", again there is no secondary source, this is introducing bias and basing statements on original research, since there is no secondary source which substantiates the claim that the school represents the Foreword'. The fact is that there is an issue of the school paper on the school's website. Any attempt to describe the motive or reason behind any such placement requires a secondary source, which so far is not forthcoming.

There is also a consensus on the talk page that the statement "and security environment where authorities' surveillance of the student body via cameras extends beyond the school campus "even as far as Pittock" Street" introduces a POV and a bias to the article. A third party opinion was sought per Wikipedia:Third opinion, and that third party agreed with me that this was the case, as can be seen on the talk page. Now I can't see why this is being disregarded, but I note that the third party page asks for all to act in good faith. Had the third opinion gone against me I would have accepted that, I'm a good faith user and I know my record shows it.

I'm disturbed by the language on User talk:0-0-0-Destruct-0, specifically that User:0-0-0-Destruct-0 declares "I'm happy to follow your advice and look forward to working with others who collaborate instead of retaliate. In the event inappropriate behavior returns". How this refers to this issue is obviously not within my power to know, but frankly I believe this has now become a matter for arbitration. I can't know how my actions have been coloured and obviously I don't believe I am at fault here, so I simply believe the whole matter should go to arbitration. I don't really understand how advocacy works, I believe in accepting this case you believe there are merits to the inclusion of this material, and I don't see those merits being made. I've tried my hardest to discuss this and re-iterate our policies, but believe I stand on very firm ground since our policy on original research states both that Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.and further that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Since all the edits I object to interpret primary source rather than simply detailing them, they are not substantiated by reliable sources, and thus should be removed from Wikipedia, per verifiabiliy policy, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. and further iterates that Any edit lacking a source may be removed....

I've attempted to discuss this issue, as can be seen on the talk page, but the argument is simply circular. I see no choice but to open an arbitration case. Steve block Talk 17:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no arbitration: It will better for you too, as ArbCom is absolutely unaccurate on content disputes as it focuses on other types of issues and always after a mediation (excepting very big probelms).

My opinion is the following: as far as I see, the school yearbook includes a picture of the Foreword; this implies, to me, that the school endorses the students' publication existence, but not necessarily the content (though there are photographs of its articles)... otherwise, the school wouldn't even mention the Foreword.

I found my argument in an experience from my own school. There was a student newspaper called "El Tábano" (Spanish for "The horse-fly"). The official yearbook always had an article about it, mainly on the editors board, new ideas, etc. That was always considered as a school's official endorsement to "El Tábano". But, around 1996 or 1997, "El Tábano" included a "Letters" section that was used to anonimously attack the teachers and also the Principal and almost everything. The Principal ordered the closure of "El Tábano" and there were no more references to it in the yearbooks. But "El Tábano" went clandestine, being edited as an informal yearbook... The Principal had to expulse the editors. ("El Tábano" is now considered a legend and there was an idea to restore it two years ago, but without success).

What I mean is this: Destruct's information is not original research. It may be non-notable, but not OR. If a school's yearbook includes reference to something it doesn't endorse, then it is boycotting its own authority!

Maybe a solution to the dispute would be an informal mediation, but never an arbitration. --Neigel von Teighen 07:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Mediation was offered by myself but User:0-0-0-Destruct-0 instead stated that "it would be best, and perhaps more expedient, if we could solve our problems ourselves." That comment was made back in December yet here we still are. Arbitration is the only way forward and I care little for the outcome. This debate started nearly five months ago and has seen four editors make the claim that the edits do not belong and only one make the claim that they do. Quite frankly, I simply want this to end one way or another. This low level edit war cannot keep continuing. It is not fair on User:0-0-0-Destruct-0, myself, the advocacy system or the article.

• • As to your comment on what is an is not original research, you have failed to address my point. User:0-0-0-Destruct-0 is committing original research because User:0-0-0-Destruct-0 is interpreting a primary source. I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make by stating that "If a school's yearbook includes reference to something it doesn't endorse, then it is boycotting its own authority!" Perhaps you could explain it better, since I fail to see how it has any bearing here. The school reproduced an image of the school newspaper. This is a fact. Any attempt to describe what that fact means is interpretation. Hope that helps. You seem to be misreading the debate or the edits under discussion, or maybe both. The article already states that the paper is produced by the school as part of the curriculum. Therefore the article already asserts the point you are trying to make, that "the school endorses the students' publication existence"

• • I'm also glad you agree that the school does not endorse the content. Thus I again fail to see how this addresses the contentious edits, which seek to make the claim that the school does indeed endorse the content of the school paper. It would help me if you could address eacxh specific point I make, since you do not seem to be disagreeing with me on any of them.

• • I have little experience with the advocacy system on Wikipedia, so forgive my if you have done this already, but have you conferred with the previous advocate in this debate, User:Elomis? Steve block Talk 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, how would it be if you and 0-0-0-Destruct-0 agree on a mediation, but with the compromise of respecting it and collaboration between you after having reached an agreement? In Wikipedia we have two mediation processes: informal Mediation Cabal and official Mediation Committee, but both have a good and similar performance. But, if you agree, then you must compromise yourself to not file an arbitration on content dispute after it (not including user issues: i.e. if you believe Destruct is bullying you or similar, you should be able to file an arbitration).

It would be very productive that you take an advocate too. Do it here. AMA is a voluntary project and our mission is to support and advice advocees to 1) make their point heard, 2) but always trying to respect policies. I think it will be great because we both advocates will try to work together to solve this dispute in a reasonable way. (Hope you don't get traped in our backlog...)

What do you think? I'm preparing a kind of simple proposal that may work, but I still need Destruct's agreement. --Neigel von Teighen 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need an advocate. Look, I've tried to do my best all the way through this and it obviously isn't good enough, so like I say, after five months it's become obvious there's a problem here somewhere and I'd just rather arb-com sorted it out. I've tried to engage the community on this, I've opened RFC's and I've posted messages on the mailing list and the admin's noticeboard. I've offered mediation, I am not sure what more I should have done, but I am now exhausted. There really is nowhere else to go on this one but arb-com. The only other option I can see is for me to request comment on my own behaviour in this discussion, as from what I can make out that appears now to be the main cause for contention. There is no discussion of the points at hand. Where there has been we've managed to move the article on, and I think the section detailing the school paper is an excellent addition. Anyway, best regards, Steve block Talk 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're free to do go to Arb-Com, if you decide, but believe that it is very unprobable that you get heard: ArbCom does not deal with content disputes. --Neigel von Teighen 11:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Steve block Talk 17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Are the other objectors to the content not to be a party to the mediation? Steve block Talk 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course. It's an article mediation, not aimed to critique user behaivor. Could you contact them? But, please, the idea is to solve, not to push. Ah, and I appreciate you're willing to follow this less-harmful process; arbitration would have been a suicide. --Neigel von Teighen 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be better if you list the parties, I assume you are in discussion with them as part of this dispute? As to arbitration being suicide, that's not what has been indicated to me; could you expand on your reasons please. 84.92.54.229 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC) appear to have logged out there. Steve block Talk 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know who those users are; and expect they'll be helpful. Arbitration in this case would be suicidal because it's a content dispute. Arbs are absolutely unaccurate on these topics... if they even accept to hear the case! --Neigel von Teighen 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All involved parties listed on the informal mediation request have accepted and discussion is now underway at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Taylor Allderdice High School. I am requesting a short informative statement from all parties to get things started. Please stop by the talk page at your convenience and we can be under way. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 11:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections, I've fixed it as per your recommendations. I haven't had much time to edit on es lately, but I'll ask you if I need any more help. Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's simply perfect. :-) --Neigel von Teighen 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I spotted that you're trying to re-start the AMA. I agree with the call for a co-ordinator election, and I fully support you for the position of co-ordinator. Walton^Assistance! 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Neigel von Teighen 13:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we've got 4RR blanking at Steve Martland. Might you give some assistance? Many thanks Badagnani 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not an admin! --Neigel von Teighen 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you did some edits to Taylor Allderdice High School... The problem is that section is part of a [mediation request] and a past [mediation]! I'm not sure if your edits will be disputed or not, but maybe you should place a message on the talk page explaining your edit (a brief informative post), so nobody dares to missinterpret your contribution and we can even use it as a way to solve problems. Best regards, --Neigel von Teighen 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the heads up. I hadn't been involved in any of this issue, and just spotted it in regards to the awards that I've been working on. I will look further to understand the issues involved. It seems that in addition to a star for a featured article, we should also have a land mine symbol for articles that are in the middle of a content battle. Alansohn 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, that's not a bad idea! --Neigel von Teighen 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand any of this at all. I'm not sure what is happening. I've been away for a couple of days and I come back to see this request. I thought we were already in a mediation, that was undertaken by all parties in good faith. I don't understand how a mediation can be stopped like that. I'm afraid for the time being, until I can understand all of this I can't see why any more mediation will help. That is what we just did. Steve block Talk 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid, we're "upgrading" the mediation and Arkyan is invited to participate too. Is to have a broader input. By the way, now I see I haven't invited Arkyan... --Neigel von Teighen 17:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but who are you referring to when you say we're "upgrading" the mediation? I've not been party to any discussion on this. As far as I can see, the mediation has been withdrawn from. I don't see how another mediation will offer anything different from the previous mediation. Steve block Talk 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some thoughts, we have considered that the issues that follow would be better treated by a new mediator; but I repeat, Arkyan has been invited to continue his work. Well, you're right that we did this bit hasty and that we should have told you. OK, you're free to sign the mediation or not; we won't pretend to sue you if you don't want to take this. --Neigel von Teighen 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to add Arkyan as a party? I think User:Ned Scott and User:ChrisGriswold should also be considered as parties, given they have had the disputed edits reverted. Steve block Talk 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat something I've already told you before: anyone that feels involved to a mediation has the right to be in it. But, to be in a mediation means that you're going to try to solve something; so, if you want them in, you must be aware of that. The difference with informal mediations is that you need the user's consent: you can add him at the parties list, but if they don't sign is useless... And I think ChrisGriswold, after his sockpuppetry incident, doesn't want to participate in anything related to this article. --Neigel von Teighen 06:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any reason why Arkyan or any of the others should not be added? Yes, you are right mediation has to be agreed to by all parties, but we just had one mediation that was agreed to by all parties, and then one party withdrew. So it doesn't really matter if we all sign up at the start or not. Let's at least discuss who should be added. Maybe if the other people had been contacted prior to the informal mediation we would be standing in a better position now as to knowing who to include. Steve block Talk 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some problems with what you say. First, I'm not sure your idea of afterwards-inclusion is permitted by MedCom: they are very strict in procedure... we should ask before. Also, if you want to form a group, usually you'll have to chose a spokesperson.

I'm not against including anyone. I only say that you must be clever who do you want in so nothing fails. There's a user I myself would like to see in: User:Alansohn. He did this edit some days ago... Maybe a good contribution? --Neigel von Teighen 06:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so if we have to include people before the mediation starts, can we not ask the people if they would be agreeable to mediation before we list them as a part? I mean, it would have been nice had I been asked before you made this request. To be honest though, I can't really see a need to go for another mediation at this point, since at no point has the actual content under dispute been discussed. I can't see that mediation is needed at this time when no real discussion of the edits in question has been made. All that's really been talked about is the sock puppetry and some attempts to guess at my motivations for wanting to make them. Perhaps if we discussed the content between ourselves first, it might turn out there is no need for mediation. What do you think? What disturbs me most is that there is a fundamental appears to me to be a possible misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. I would also like to check that it is quite clear to all parties that the text within the article is not sacrosanct and is subject to change at any time by any editor. Steve block Talk 11:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what you say is reasonable; go ahead and ask them if they're willing to participate. But let them decide of they want to do it.

Consensus is not written on stone. That's obvious. The problem is when one makes edits thinking that there is consensus and there is not; the issue is to know whether there is consensus or not... and past-consensus is a useful guide to see what to do.

Ah, I'm getting a bit busier these days, so I'm not sure how quickly I'll be able to answer or follow the discussion. Hope you understand. Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 11:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this same material was extensively discussed six months ago in the consensus that arose then. Steve_block and I were parties to that discussion and consensus. Since then, the only intervening factor is another party to the consensus using a sockpuppet to make disruptive edits. Steve_block subsequently wanted to implement the sockpuppet's edits, a suggestion we informally mediated to impasse. Steve_block seems to be saying that we have not mediated yet, and because we have not mediated yet, we should not start formal mediation. I don't follow the sense of that. We have indeed mediated, reached an impasse, and the appropriate next step is to continue mediation at the appropriate next venue, which is formal mediation. The peripherally interested parties whose participation and demonstrated interest doesn't come close to approaching mine and Steve_block's are certainly welcome to pop in at the discussion as they please. Arkyan's involvement is much greater, and he has expressed enthusiasm to continue considering our issues, so I welcome him and was happy to see him invited to the formal mediation. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 16:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies, I think I'll decline the mediation request. As 0-0-0-Destruct-0 notes, we just had one mediation, which failed. I don't see that as a basis for entering another. Not sure what you two think the next appropriate step is? Go back to editing the article and see where that takes us? Steve block Talk 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that informal mediation reached an impasse, the next appropriate step to resolve a dispute is formal mediation, per WP policy[6]. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 22:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be the page that states "Which ones you choose and in what order will depend on the nature of the dispute, and the preferences of people involved." yeah? So how do you want to move on from here. It would help if you could tell me exactly what the issues were with the content under discussion. Steve block Talk 18:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to follow the next step policy clearly lays out: formal mediation. We've already discussed the issues as extensively as possible in the other venues the dispute resolution process policy names. The article's talk page led to consensus; the informal mediation led to an impasse. As I notified you[7], I tried to characterize the issues as carefully as possible within the RfM's guidelines. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise the next stage listed after informal mediation is a survey, don't you? I'd also disagree with both your characterisations, that the mediation reached an impasse and that there was consensus on the talk page. However, I think those are side issues. All I'm interested in discussing here is the content. Like I say, it would help if you could tell me exactly what the issues were with the content under discussion. Steve block Talk 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I saw the information on surveys, but as you've said you've already made RfC's. Obviously, the page is too obscure to attract a sustained general interest. Mediation is the next appropriate venue. I think since the extensive discussion ended in December with a consensus that remained untouched for five months we do need to continue to avail ourselves of the dispute resolution process we've begun rather than act as if there were no previous discussion and spin our wheels all over again. And one thing's for sure: the informal mediation reached an impasse. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, MediationBot1 has noticed me below that the RfM expired. --Neigel von Teighen 12:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got one too. Are you still acting as an advocate? Steve block Talk 18:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, yes I'm still acting as advocate, though AMA's shutdown: the difference is that I'm no longer an official advocate, but an informal one. I do this because I believe I must finish my work. Of course, after this case, I'm not going to take any other case.

A note: the idea of sequential resorts at WP:DR has been progressively broken down. There are no longer formal prerequisites for making a mediation or an RfC like before. The only exception is ArbCom, where you need to have tried a mediation first (any kind). The policy says: "Which ones you choose and in what order will depend on the nature of the dispute, and the preferences of people involved." So, it's a matter of method preference, not a rigorous sequence to follow. This has been done because some users did RfC's and RfM's they made fail in purpose only to have an excuse to get into arbitration (when the obliged sequence was RfC --> RfM --> RfAr). --Neigel von Teighen 08:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neigel, if you're still acting as an advocate then, perhaps you can help me out here. Can you explain what was wrong with the content of Arkyan's compromise version seen here, Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23_Taylor_Allderdice_High_School/archive3#Suggested_compromise_version? Steve block Talk 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking anything away from Arkyan and the work he put in on our behalf, we should respect two other opinions[8][9] that produced a better outcome for the article and formed a basis for this longstanding consensus[10]. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, apologize me. I'm busy these days; I hope to be able to reply tomorrow. Sorry. --Neigel von Teighen 14:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just repeating what 0-0-0-Destruct-0 said, but the problem with Arkyan version was that it didn't reflected a compromise. --Neigel von Teighen 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In what way? What specifically isn't suitable? Steve block Talk 16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, to rewrite something that it had been already discussed and was somehow "stablished". I know consensus isn't written in stone, but normally you have to consider past consensus as a fundamental stone if you want to do something good that version was done without any comparison of past decisions. But just a question, was the awards part of the discussion? I sincerely don't remember it well. --Neigel von Teighen 10:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm sorry but you have me really confused now. You're saying that although the article stayed stable for a long period of time, 0-0-0-Destruct-0 was free to propose changes to that stable version during the mediation which had already been discussed and settled on the talk page, but I was not? Otherwise, I can't understand what you are saying. Please can you explain to me what the issues were with the content itself. Steve block Talk 16:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I raised only items the talk page had left unresolved. Happily, our mediation finally resolved them. I regret it took so long to address the talk page's impasse, but I did indicate I was waiting for an AMA. The first simply abandoned the project, as did the second, delaying us for months. You're familiar with the AMA's disarray and disbanding. Neigel, however, has been wonderful, a model of what such an organization is capable of, and if I'm to be the AMA's last advocee, I think it was worth the wait. You wish to undo the talk page's carefully established consensus. I've demonstrated I'm willing to look into that with you--you and I are that consensus's two key players. Since informal mediation didn't work, formal mediation is the next appropriate forum for discussion. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on how we determine which were resolved issues and which were unresolved. Are those decisions only you can make? I assumed that both sides were free to raise points, a view that was encouraged by your advocate. Perhaps Neigel could clarify for me. Neigel, was I free to raise points and expect them to be discussed? Is that what a mediation offers, is that its purpose? Steve block Talk 18:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were free to raise points and did. We reached an impasse, but if you're interested in trying the next appropriate venue, formal mediation, I think that would be a good and productive idea. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but I think I'll just stick to editing, if it's all the same. My one experience of mediation fell a little flat. As soon as I raised points for discussion, the other party called time. See you around. Steve block Talk 12:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first experience with dispute resolution too, and from my end it's taken quite a lot more effort and patience. I've followed the dispute resolution policies and guidelines, and even though it's not as fast as I would like, I think it is worth doing, so I can only recommend that you try trusting the same process and give it a try. After all, this isn't your first experience with mediation; you offered formal mediation to me once before, but then withdrew within a few hours. So I thought you'd prefer formal mediation, and I can only ask you to find the patience this time to try it. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think that HHO gas does not "clearly state that it is a hoax"?? The introduction which states that it's a hoax isn't good enough? — Omegatron 15:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the introduction states HHO is a hoax, I think the article has this two following problems:

1. If you consider HHO is a hoax, I'd expect that the first line says something like: "HHO ("Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen") or Klein gas is a scientific hoax constisting in claiming to have created a gas by an electrolysis process from water and which its patent claims has special properties." Currently, the line stating that HHO is fictional is the in the fourth paragraph and the three previous ones gives a lot of importance to the "story features" (the trademark name of the supposed gas, e. g.)
2. The whole article is written as HHO was real. When describing hoaxes, you of course can tell people what features does it have and say what and how HHO is supposed to be, but in a similar way as you were writing about Darth Vader: you describe his characteristics but always from the real world perspective, never from the fictional one. A detail that shows my point is the mass spectrometry graph: the tag reads "A mass spectrometry scan of HHO gas created with a PerkinElmer GC-MS Clarus 500, by SunLabs at the University of Tampa, Florida, showing a peak at 5 amu. Ruggero Santilli claims that this peak can only be explained by his 'magnecule' theory.", instead of a more reasonable "This would be the supposed mass spectrometry scan of HHO...".

Maybe WP:FICTION may help you to understand what I mean. --Neigel von Teighen 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider HHO is a hoax, I'd expect that the first line says something like: "HHO ("Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen") or Klein gas is a scientific hoax constisting in claiming to have created a gas by an electrolysis process from water and which its patent claims has special properties."

It's not that simple. I'm extremely annoyed at all these people just brushing off the entire article as a "hoax", without actually reading it or looking at the discussions on the talk page.

• Without evidence of malicious intent, we can't say that something is a hoax. We can only say that it's bad science, pseudoscience, fringe science, or the like. A hoax is intentional misrepresentation.
• Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis is not a hoax. Burning the resulting gas to make a welder is not a hoax. Do we label the entire concept a hoax if parts of it aren't?
• Water-powered cars are definitely a hoax, and the news programs say that this company has created a water-powered car, so we should clearly label that part of the article a hoax, right? But when I looked into it, I saw that HTA doesn't actually claim a water-powered car. They claim a "hybrid" car that uses their gas to increase the burn efficiency of gasoline. The water-powered car is misrepresentation by the news reporter, so what do we do here? We write "The news reports claim a water-powered car, though the company itself doesn't. Water powered cars are a known hoax."
• Claiming that this gas has special properties like not obeying the normal gas laws may very well be a (malicious) hoax or just (non-malicious) bad science, but since these claims were just made in 2006, they haven't been responded to in scientific literature. All we can say, from a neutral point of view, is that this guy made these claims, and that some of them would violate these known laws of physics.

Currently, the line stating that HHO is fictional

Fictional? Do you think that the existence of this company is fictional? Or that they are selling fictional gas generators to fictional people? We need to be precise in our language. This is pseudoscience, not fiction.

the trademark name of the supposed gas

The intro is for spelling out different names for a topic. This could certainly be worded differently, but that doesn't mean the entire article should be deleted.

The whole article is written as HHO was real.

It most certainly was not! I worked really hard writing about this crap and providing notable criticisms and debunking. Give some examples of text in the article that treated the claims as factual or undisputed.

A detail that shows my point is the mass spectrometry graph: the tag reads "A mass spectrometry scan of HHO gas created with a PerkinElmer GC-MS Clarus 500, by SunLabs at the University of Tampa, Florida, showing a peak at 5 amu. Ruggero Santilli claims that this peak can only be explained by his 'magnecule' theory.", instead of a more reasonable "This would be the supposed mass spectrometry scan of HHO...".

Adding "allegedly" or "supposed" all throughout the article doesn't make it neutral; it just makes it sound stupid. These are called weasel words and it is recommended to remove them from articles. This is exactly the kind of crap that Nomen kept putting in the article, without any sources, which I and several other editors removed, that caused him to put the article up for deletion.

How would you describe that graph from a neutral point of view, without weasel words?

Maybe WP:FICTION may help you to understand what I mean

That page isn't relevant at all. This article isn't about a fictional world inside a book, or about Darth Vader. It's about a gas that is claimed to have physics-defying properties. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience for more relevant information. — Omegatron 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHO meant as it was shown in the article is a hoax. No, I recognize it is not fictional because HHO is water passed through an electrolysis and the rejoined again by burning the "resulting gas". HHO is not a valid inorganic compound formula (HH should be H₂; in organic compounds that's allowed, but this is not the case because there are no carbon atoms).

Can you please tell what gas laws does HHO exactly defy? If it has to do with density, then it is water (Have you never thought why ice floats over water? Because it has lower density than liquid water when most other compounds turn more dense the colder they are). If not, please tell me which. --Neigel von Teighen 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it defies any gas laws, and I won't until some solid evidence is presented. Santilli claims that it changes into liquid water under certain pressures or something. No explanation is given except his bogus "magnecules". — Omegatron 01:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Back from Wikibreak) All gases turn into liquid when put under big pressure, because atoms/molecules become closer to each other and density increases. --Neigel von Teighen 16:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taylor Allderdice High School. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]