TALK PAGE OF とある白い猫

{{{ovr|

To post a new topic please use this link or the 'new section' between "edit this page" and "history".

Posts

WP:ANI

Please stop disrupting the noticeboard. Nakon 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

With a trivial amount of compromise you can avoid a revert war. But you are running the show with an iron fist. Tells a lot about how ani discussions go. I will stop reverting the second you restore my comment and remove the discussion templates. -- Cat 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. Three editors have told you to either drop it or take it to DRV. Stop edit warring and do so. Nakon 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not going to take it to Drv. And I will revert that page back. You could save me and everyone a lot of time if you just restored my comment. -- Cat 01:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So because three (four including myself) have asked you to drop it, you're going to continue just to violate WP:POINT? Nakon 01:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Point? What point am I illustrating? Do not throw random policies and guidelines at me. I am far to experienced for that. -- Cat 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't throw account age into the ring. Your actions are clearly disruptive and need to stop. I'd advise you to listen to this edit by Daniel. Nakon 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How ironic. You are accusing me of being elitist indirectly because I complain about arbcom eliteicism. -- Cat 02:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who mentioned account age. Nakon 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not. I merely said I was experienced. You interpreted that on your own. -- Cat 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The heck?

Who do you heck do you think you are characterizing my concerns and comments as trolling? Even actual legal court decisions can be criticized. Why can't arbocom? And this isn't even tied to any decisions by arbcom on a dispute. -- Cat 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they've made their point clear and your comments are to effect of "well screw them, I deny they can control the way RfAr works". What you seem to forget is all the RfAr pages are designed for the community to interact with the Committee, not the other way around, and as such Committee have control over the format and composition of all pages in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/* and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/*. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WC/CC...you're being disruptive and three arb clerks have, in various words, told you to chill out. So do so. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this issue with the foundation itself including Jimbo. I will drop this issue when I feel comfortable with the result. You can count on that. Arbitration clerks are not divine entities. I will not be patronized. -- Cat 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. I eagerly await the Foundation's inaction on the issue due to them totally disagreeing with you. Daniel (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is everything that scripted? My my... -- Cat 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're just naive and ignorant. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Naive in the sense I still believe foundation would listen to what I have to say? Ignorant as in I see a cultural problem others want to hide under the carpet? -- Cat 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you so sure? -- Cat 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My gut. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How ironic. You are attempting to rebuff my attempt to criticize[REDACTED] by linking to external criticism of[REDACTED] by Stephan Colbert. -- Cat 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, calm down plz. —Dark 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should I be "uncalm"? I am the one merely proposing minor changes to arbcom. People are going out of their way to attack me for it. It is them who should be calm. -- Cat 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, misrepresenting the facts. It was disagreed with by arbitrators and clerks, and you're going out of your way to threaten to make edits which will disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. You even link to the essay policy when doing so regarding the mediation restriction. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What essay is that? -- Cat 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy, even. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I intend to disrupt[REDACTED] by successfully mediating a dispute. Your point? -- Cat 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what Daniel said... —Dark 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, that is what the ridiculous arbcom remedy bans me from though. -- Cat 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The respected members of the Arbitration Committee i) believe mediating "require skill and the trust of the community", ii) believe you " unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a number of contested articles" ... "where he had a strong POV", and iii) have therefore "prohibited from holding out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute". These respected and elected representatives of the community do not believe you have the necessary qualities or community support to be a mediator, and have banned you from doing so to prevent further disruption. You cannot ignore an arbitration decision just because you disagree with its ratio. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Will you block me for mediating? What makes you think I haven't mediated many disputes via a sockpuppet account? -- Cat 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, stop digging yourself into a hole. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am doing the exact opposite. Trying to pull arbcom out of a hole. -- Cat 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by FT2

There seem to be a couple of matters you are fighting on today at least - a RFAR redirect issue, and the removal of the prohibition on mediating for others. Unfortunately both of those seem to be problematic. The Arbitration Committee generally manages its own subpages, and there doesn't seem to be consensus either by Arbitrators, or arbcom clerks, or even by the community, to treat those differently than they are being treated. And the mediation issue, was considered by appeal very recently, and whilst questions were raised as to whether a lesser restriction might help, in the end, no arbitrator was willing to say the restriction should be removed as recently as March 2008. Wider communal consensus on both just says no interest in more discussion, best I can tell.

The communal concern in the mediation issue seems to be that you are still prone to argument rather than discussion, and unfortunately that seems to be the case. On the other hand you are under considerable stress and are likely snapping at many things in part for that reason too. (Others have done so as well, not just you, I should add.) The concern I have is that these topics may be going nowhere in which case eventually your continuing pushing at them will just be seen as a problem by others.

I'm not sure what to suggest, but accepting what is, rather than consistently reacting to it, is probably going to be part of it. Easy for me to say, I know; I dont feel under pressure of the circumstances you've described. So I am wary of saying a lot because Im not sure I can be a help here, sadly. FT2  03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I dislike my activity to be classified as "fighting". I am not confronting - hardly arguing. I am not even being treated seriously... My efforts have been declared as trolling though. That sure surprised me. Please avoid such language.

Clarification. Issues I discussed today:

1. Possible restructuring of arbcom's main page WP:RFAR into two sub pages
   • This effort was declared as trolling
2. Recreation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for Arbitration/Davenbelle redirect
   • This discussion was closed, the admin deleting the page refuses to discuss this out of process deletion.
   • I am not binded by any rule arbitrators aren't.
3. FYI I relayed to arbcom over my intention to ignore their decision completely.
   • It doesn't qualify as an ultimatum as I am not proposing anything. Also an ultimatum to mediate would be an oxymoron.

• I do not believe arbitrators seriously discussed my appeal. If they have, I see no evidence of it. I think arbitrators do not have the slightest clue what those restrictions are doing to me - to a person who would rather die than mediate something on this project. Arbitrators have succeeded in disgusting me away from mediation. Let there be no mistake about it.
• It is simply offensive to every value I believe in such as honesty and fairness that arbcom and the community is willing to consider unblock/unban of trolls, vandals and other disruptive users (I am not even referencing to the Jack Merridew case) and yet go out of their way to ignore my appeal. How many edits does the indef blocked MARMOT get? MARMOT being a person who wrote vandalism bots, abused MediaWiki vulnerabilities to vandalize among other issues. He was unblocked and given a second chance, twice. Me being a good user (relative to MARMOT at least) have been given no such chances. What have I done to deserved to be treated so poorly?
• Then there is the matter of how would people punish me for successfully mediating... Seriously, would you block me? Even if the Mediation fails to resolve the dispute... Would you block me? Even if I were to be blocked for how long would it be? Based on what? Arbcom remedy doesn't even talk about blocking.
• Do you have any idea how much crap I need to deal with due to the expired remedies? Do you? Do you have any idea how useless arbcom has been so far? I have been bringing issues to arbcom since 2005. Not only do I need to hand feed arbitrators evidence and etc but I also have to deal with their poor judgment which only affects me. I am condemned to many things as a result.
  • Even a one week newbie knows I will never be granted admin tools.
    • Why? because I have been infront of arbcom at least four times now. In all cases Davenbelle was of course involved. A 5th case was avoided which is why the arbcom is still dealing with this.
  • I am completely banned from editing Kurdish or Armenian related articles even if the article isn't controversial.
    • I want to point out a good deal of these articles are hijacked by lobbyists. CAMERA people were merely careless, they aren't the only one. The Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case is a tool only useful to lobbyists. Regular inexperienced users can be sanctioned. Experienced paid/unpaid staff of lobbies can change accounts faster than you can change underwear.
  • No one has been taking be seriously since the first arbitration case. People always assume bad faith and mistreat me. They constantly accuse me of a hidden agenda. They call me paranoid even in the light of Christal clear evidence.
  • I am in a position where I cannot loose anything.
    • I am on a dynamic IP range. I know the inner workings of the community and MediaWiki to avoid any kind of block. I have obeyed any block to dat voluntarily even if I could easily avoid them. This isn't intended as a threat btw. It isn't like there is anything the community can take away from me.
      • I will not compromise from my personal values on honesty and fairness even if it incriminates me. So getting another account is out of the question for me. Dishonesty works better in the mechanics of our wiki-society. Under the guise of "privacy" you and I know how many sanctioned people returned editing. They become less disruptive so as to stay under the radar - but what was the point of the sanction?
• I already know from experience that the arbitration committee is anything but helpful. This isn't intended to be an insult. Just an observation from experience. So I know my expectations.

I am willing to listen others as much as they are willing to listen to me. You are obviously willing to listen to me which is why I am willing to listen to you as a person. I consider you different from rest of the arbitrators per your initiative to talk to me.

-- Cat 04:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)