User:Bishonen/RFM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page: v • e • d • watch

Filed: 09:13, July 27 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen-Jimbo Wales[edit]

Dispute details[edit]

Issues to be mediated[edit]

The issues to be mediated are the aspects of the disputed articles over which the parties disagree. Be as specific and as concise as possible when outlining the issues. The filing party should add the issues here when completing this request. Other parties may request on the talk page that additional issues be added or that amendments be made to the primary issues.
  • Come to a compromise as to what notation goes in Bishonen's block log (Jimbo has already agreed to this).
  • A look at the reasons why this dispute escalated.
  • A wider look at Jimbo's future use of the block button - hopefully we can make things more official than a statement on his own talk page.
  • A look at Jimbo's use of other tools going forward.
Requests that issues be added by proposing so on the talk page of this mediation.

Party agreement to mediation[edit]

All parties should indicate below whether they agree to participate in this mediation or not. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the request will be declined. Please indicate that you agree by adding "Agree. ~~~~" (or Disagree if you do not) below. Comments should be directed to the talk page.
  • Disagree. Sorry, Ryan, I'm not trying to be difficult or make some sort of point here, but I do not agree. I have tried to discuss and communicate with Jimbo already--note, not only on my subpage User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, but by now also on the arb's mailing list. I'm completely frustrated and stressed out by these attempts. Both of us do our best, no doubt, but I've never had so much difficulty in communicating and arguing with somebody before. Surely this whole thing can't depend on me performing that feat? And what the blazes is so wrong with the arbs opening a case? Presumably the community looks to them for guidance on this--not to me. (I am, whatever Rlevse says, after all a "Jane User", although Jimbo is by no means a "Joe Admin".[1]) The arbs have already proposed a number of suggestions for how to frame a case--for the scope--on the RFAR page. Alternately, in case there's is something magically repugnant about an "arbitration case" about Jimbo, NYBrad has said he's proposing to deal with the matter by a motion instead, and what's wrong with that? Bishonen | talk 14:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC).
    • Bishonen, I agree that you and Jimbo have both tried to discuss the matter. That is a difficult process because of your respective roles in Wikipedia. You ask "what's wrong with the arbs opening a case?" Well, unless I've missed something (always possible) the policy on dispute resolution has not been followed. According to WP:DR, arbitration is a last resort: "If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request Arbitration." You have taken a first step, but how does bypassing mediation meet the intent of the policy? Sunray (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. I stand ready to continue as I have bending over backwards to try to find a way to resolve this issue with Bishonen. I do not understand why Bishonen believes this cannot be resolved through discussion. I have already unilaterally agreed to some of her demands and, as Ryan notes in the opening, even agreed to place some mutually agreeable note into her block log. She refuses to even attempt to find such a wording, despite me making very clear to her that I am open for suggestions. I made all these concessions to her in order to show generosity and forgiveness, and I still stand ready to do that. I believe that an ArbCom case is going to leave her much worse off than what I have offered to her.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You may well be right about that, Jimbo. I wonder if it would be all right for me to quote some of your "generosity and forgiveness" from your e-mails on the arb mailing list, to show people just what I'm having to contend with? Probably it wouldn't, so I won't. Jimbo, I'm sorry my reasons for declining aren't clear to you. Please note that I'm not declining to be contrary; I'm doing it because I can't face it, and because I'm convinced it wouldn't do any good. Look, people--Ryan, Sunray, and so on--if I'm to be forced into doing this, why are you even bothering to "ask" me? And what's wrong, again, with Brad proposing a motion (my god, already I'm repeating myself)? An arbcom motion? Why would anybody by preference want a Bishonen motion? Is it because you think I'm more managable than Arbcom or something? More likely to give up sooner? Well, I probably am; I feel soft as putty after the efforts I've already made. But that's not a good reason for me to take it on. Ryan, I'm now done on this page. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC).
      • Forced mediation is an oxymoron. Unless both parties agree to mediate in good faith there is scant chance of success. As to your feeling soft as putty after the efforts you have made, I can relate to that. It appears to have produced little towards an accommodation. Either mediation or arbitration will be demanding, but as least in mediation we can take as much time as is needed. We do not have to go any faster than participants are up for. I honestly do not understand your reasons for bypassing this step. Would you be able to explain that? Sunray (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Sunray, she said no. She doesn't have to explain ad nauseum. This is the wrong venue for behavioral disputes and administrative actions, anyway. Nice idea on Ryan's part; the offer was made and rejected. Move on already. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
          • My question was not whether she said yes or no, it was why? If there has been an explanation, I missed it. The question seems reasonable to me. I also do not see this as a "behavioural dispute." It involves an action and an administrative sanction. There are questions about the application of policy in each instance. That is what mediation is all about IMHO. Sunray (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
          • To KC: He wasn't asking her to explain ad nauseum; he was asking Bishonen to expand on a handful of points she made in her above comments. AGK 21:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks, I actually think Bishonen's explanation is sufficient, and more explanation is uneedful, and pestering her to provide such is badgering. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
              • KC, I am saying that it do not get Bishonen's reasoning on this. Would you be willing to let her answer for herself? Sunray (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can read, Sunray. I actually do see what you are saying. And Bishonen can do whatever she wishes; neither you nor I will hinder her from that. I am merely chastizing you for badgering someone. Is this now clear enough for you? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 09:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

A member of the Committee will accept or decline this request in due course. Mediators may also add queries for the parties or other remarks or suggestions. These may replied to briefly by means of an indented post underneath, or at length on the mediation talk page.
Decline. For the Committee, AGK 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal note: I confess myself to be disappointed in having to decline the request, but the case cannot proceed without unanimous agreement from both parties. In a strictly individual capacity: for what it's worth, Bishonen, I would observe (in response to your comment that you're "completely frustrated and stressed out by these attempts") that mediation is a process that takes the burden of working towards a compromise away from the parties and onto a third-party—which would allow all involved a little breathing room. AGK 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bishonen/RFM&oldid=1146071737"