User talk:Kirok/archive2

Mediation Cabal Intervention Requested

Request

Please allow this message to serve as notification that I have requested the assistance of the Mediation Cabal and opened up a case. A link to where you can compose your response. From the Cabal's page: "[W]e aren't at all official and are just normal Wikipedians. The job of the Mediation Cabal is basically to provide a friendly hand in resolving disputes without taking it through a formal channel." — Mike • 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediator Statement

Hi, I am Adam and I have taken this case. The details of the request for mediation are at 2006-06-17 KirokLessonsLearnedEssay.

Folks, this appears to be a classic case of failing to assume good faith. I suggest you discuss your differences and find a compromise. Some things you might discuss are changes to the essay to address Mike's concerns, or letting Mike write a rebuttal that could be placed here or in his user space with a link to it from here. And remember, don't bite. Ideogram 10:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirok Response to Mediator Statement

"Folks, this appears to be a classic case of failing to assume good faith."

• [Sigh] Unless you are talking about Mike's reaction to the essay I assume you are addressing me? Could you explain why you think so?

I am trying to address both of you in an even-handed manner. Rather than go over past mistakes I'll simply point out any further cases should the need arise. Ideogram 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In which case I will take it as given that there is a 50/50 chance you were talking about Mike and leave it at that.--Kirok of L'Stok 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"I suggest you discuss your differences and find a compromise."

• Mike has not asked for discussion. He has accused me of all sorts of things but not addressed any of the specific points I have raised.

Mediation is refereed discussion. Ideogram 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather cryptic answer, but uh, I'll bear that in mind--Kirok of L'Stok 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike asked for this Mediation, so in a way he did ask for discussion, he just wanted a referee. Ideogram 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Some things you might discuss are changes to the essay to address Mike's concerns, or letting Mike write a rebuttal that could be placed here or in his user space with a link to it from here."

• I write without fear or favour but I have the strength of character to admit mistakes, all traits that I admire in others. I will change anything that is proven wrong about my essay but I warn you, it will be a hard sell. I would on the other hand be delighted to not only link to any rebuttal he might want to write but also give him equal space in my fanzine article.

This is for Mike to respond to. Ideogram 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Over to you, Mike.--Kirok of L'Stok 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And remember, don't bite.

• LOL! As the accused party I reserve the right to choose weapons! I choose logic at ten paces.

nuHlIj DawwIvpu', vaj yISuv!

--Kirok of L'Stok 12:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Be careful with the humor, it has gotten you in trouble before ;-). Ideogram 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If so it is a sad indictment on the maturity and wit of the participants. The humming noise you hear is George Bernard Shaw spinning in his grave (-_-,)--Kirok of L'Stok 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much online experience you have, but the subtleties of humor are often lost in text where there is no facial expression or intonation. Ideogram 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some small experience with the written word, I also have a firm grasp of reality. To spell it out, [shakes head sadly that I should need to do this] when I write in tlhIngan-Hol you can reliably assume that that I am using h-u-m-o-u-r. I thought the concept was international although the spelling is not. If you insist, humour will be considered verboten but frankly in my experience as a moderator I have found that it will defuse inflamed passions rather than ignite them. However if Wikipedia is different ...[shakes head sadly]--Kirok of L'Stok 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to forbid you from humor, just be careful. Although many people with subtle senses of humor frown on the smiley :-) it can also help. Ideogram 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, I occassionally use Japanese, 2Byte emoticonso(^-^o)(o^-^)o o(^-^o)(o^-^)o "Born to boogie!"--Kirok of L'Stok 14:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I really shouldn't chat with you this much. It might lead Mike to question my neutrality. Ideogram 14:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Line breaks are achieved by inserting a blank line. Ideogram 13:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--Kirok of L'Stok 14:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediator Statement on Requests for Mentorship

Mediation Cabal is not in the business of assigning mentors. Usually mentors are assigned by the Arbitration Committee, with any luck we won't have to go there. Ideogram 13:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary Points/Compromise Discussion

Please stop referring to it as an attack piece, that is needlessly confrontational. Ideogram 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Replaced per your request. — Mike • 15:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel you are both good people and I am optimistic for this mediation. Ideogram 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My problems with Kirok's "Lessons Learned" essay are as follows. I'm going to list my problems through this not in order of importance, but in order of how they're presented in the essay.

Kirok, I imagine you'll be responding to this, so I'll ask for one of two things, since you have an unusual replying and signature style. If you're going to rebut by interspersing your comments in my statement, instead of writing something separate, please make it clear you're doing so by doing the following: putting a colon at the beginning of your response (to indent it) and signing it by using four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your statements.

:If you wanted to reply to this point, this is how it would look in your edit window. ~~~~

I ask this not to be anal, but so that I know when you're saying something. Putting bracketed statements inside the middle of a claim is impossible to find, and I missed an entire batch of your earlier comments in our prior exchange because you chose to reply that way.

Okay. I'm presenting this rebuttal for the purposes of mediation. I do not mean this to imply that I would somehow accept linking to this rebuttal as an acceptable alternative to this essay being taken down. Why? Well, here's how this plays out: Kirok starts this by posting his "Lessons Learned" essay. I reply by preparing this rebuttal. He then will compose a reply to this, or even if he doesn't, TheRealFennShysa will come in and respond, or some other Trekkie does ... and it never ends for me. And this incident has taught me that, among other things, sheer numbers "make right": soon all I'm doing on Wikipedia is spending hours writing in-depth responses like this, and ... very frustratingly ... as I've already done once before with Kirok.

That's why I'm willing to take this right up the chain of dispute resolution to ArbCom if I need to in order to get that essay off his page. I'll put up with many things in the name of peace, but I'm not going to agree to let something like that just sit there and malign me — especially after I spent hours upon hours trying to make peace with this user on his talk page just in the spirit of trying to keep things civil, like I'm supposed to, and then he turns around and posts an essay like this. Yes, I'm pissed, and my temper is about ready to snap. That's not to say that I'm not going to conduct myself perfectly civilly here, but this essay of Kirok's has really pushed me extremely close to the edge.

I haven't got time to go over this in detail, I have a major interview to write with one of the pioneers of Trek slash and fandom! I blow this and it will be dishonour on my house for generations to come ... plus my editor will kick me off the staff!

Please don't feel rushed. The mediation can wait. There is no hurry. Ideogram 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait as well, if he's going to posit that he's only removing his essay under protest due to time constraints. I would appreciate knowing when he would be able to return to the mediation. — Mike • 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Ideogram 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll cut the Gordian knot as best I can here to accomodate Mike whilst preserving my journalistic integrity. I'll move the essay to my blogzine and not leave a link here. Contact me off-list if you want the URL. I would normally hesitate to do this since I do not accede to bullying or suppression of comment made in the public interest but in this case it needs to go on my Blog anyway so I'll do it now. I will not actively bring it to the attention of anyone on Wikipedia - which is Wikipedia's loss.

If you are willing to do that, I think it will satisfy Mike. Ideogram 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of the caveat mentioned above, I would be satisfied with same, although I must admit that it's being done quite ungraciously while spitting a stream of invective. "[B]ullying," "suppression of comment made in the public interest," "banning of debate," and "ethics and civil liberties"? Er, thanks for toning down that hyperbole per the mediator's request, Kirok. — Mike • 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsk, Mike, even if he's not gracious you can be. Ideogram 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'M BEING UNGRACIOUS! Have you people any conception of the magnitude of the concession I have made??!! I mean far be it from me to EXPECT A THANK YOU! I find your manners to be appalling. I am the ONLY one making any concessions here and I am being taken to task for not grovelling enough? I stand by every word I said until it is proven to be in error.

Graciousness is defined as "marked by kindness and courtesy; graceful; marked by tact and delicacy." Do you really think that it is kind, courteous, graceful, tactful, or delicate to accuse someone of bullying, supressing comments, or banning debate? — Mike • 02:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't presume to give me lessons in manners sir, You still haven't acknowledged the objective steps I have made towards peace in this matter and instead harp on the "good form" of the posts! This is simply another example of you dodging and weaving. Play the ball and not the player! What have you done for your part? Shall we examine some of your own remarks to balance the debate on graciousness? "Yes, I'm pissed, and my temper is about ready to snap." vulgarity as well? "I consider this perhaps one of the most aggrevious incidences of insulting hyperbole.", "This is dangerous wording." of course, how remiss of me not to see how "marked by kindness and courtesy; graceful; marked by tact and delicacy." your own posts are! Or perhaps it is just the heat of this particular exchange? "extremely sinister", "after the lovely way in which you've approached this whole thing, how I could not be of a mind to answer any questions you wish to bring?"--Kirok of L'Stok 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

An organisation that allows the banning of debate needs to take a close look at its position as regards ethics and civil liberties.

Please don't look at it that way. What are we doing here if not having a debate? Ideogram 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read through Mikes response and frankly I believe he's making all the old mistakes by assuming bad faith on my part in that he is saying it is a personal attack. He is not the centre of my world nor even the the focus on my existence on Wikipedia.--Kirok of L'Stok 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I did get him to stop referring to it as an attack piece. Ideogram 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to be either the centre of your world or the focus of your existence on Wikipedia. But if you're attempting to insinuate that the essay had nothing to do with me, that's a laughable and demonstrable falsehood. — Mike • 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediator if you are not going to ask him to retract that accusation that I have lied, I will withdraw any offers of concession and this will start to get very, very aggressive. NOBODY since I have attained manhood has accused me of lying and been allowed to get away with it with it with impunity! RETRACT IMMEDIATELY!!--Kirok of L'Stok 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirok, let me ask you something. Have I said "under all circumstances, and without a question, Kirok is definitely lying"? No. I've said, "If you're saying [this], then that's a laughable and demonstrable falsehood."

If you're not saying that, then the other part of the sentence doesn't apply. It's as if someone said, "If Mike is saying he never nominated a single article for deletion, then that's a laughable and demonstrable falsehood." Well, I'm not saying I never nominated a single article for deletion, so, conversely, there's no accusation of me lying ... just someone who has his facts wrong.

However, in our case, things aren't quite as clear. You've said, "[H]e's making all the old mistakes by [...] saying it is a personal attack. He is not the centre of my world nor even the the focus on my existence on Wikipedia." If you're saying that the essay has nothing to do with me, then that sort of statement is the kind of thing that I accused you of, because accusations against me are all over the place in that essay. But if I've misunderstood you, then you're going to serve the purposes of peacemaking a good deal better by explaining what you really meant, instead of pulling out a bat'leth and starting swinging.

I'll give Ideogram a chance to weigh in before I make any further replies in this matter. — Mike • 02:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to weasel your way out of it by arguing semantics! You said ..."If you're saying that the essay had nothing to do with me, then that's a laughable and demonstrable falsehood." That's exactly what I am saying AND YOU KNOW IT unless you are being purposefully obtuse or ignoring my posts. The purpose of the essay is NOT and I repeat that for the slower members of the audience - NOT! - about you - it is about methods that people are using and if you see yourself amongst that group, I have no control over that. When I have referrred to you it has been on other matters. The core purpose of that essay was to highlight entrenched and erroneous and to my mind blatently unfair practises. to even suggest that what i written was a lie is a far stronger assumption of bad faith than any imagined accusation of the like that you have made of me. That was what I have said - so you ARE calling me a lier. You either apologise and retract or I will answer your outrageous slur in the strongest manner that it is within my command to do.

And I'll thank you NOT to give me gratuitous suggestions about how I can "serve the purposes of peacemaking" when you are being so obviously inflamatory. I find such behaviour hypocritical in the extreme. I have yet to see one concession from your side yet when all I have got in return has been insults. --Kirok of L'Stok 04:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I will take into account the time difference between Australia and America. You have twelve (12) hours to retract and apologise otherwise all bets are off and I will seek other avenues for redress of grievance. I don't know why I am so stupid as to keep making concessions to you people when all I get are patronising comments about my lack of Wikipedia scholarship, accusations of bad grace - which I was stunned to see that the mediator supported! - and of lying! Oh my God! I can't believe that! I have had some run-ins with people on the Internet but nobody, not even Tony Genovese at his most vitriolic, has ever accused me of falsehood! HOW DARE YOU!! The only thing that keeps me from answering in kind is the sure and certain knowledge that you, sir, are a Nidicock and I will not bandy words with the likes. Twelve hours.--Kirok of L'Stok 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As a clerical note, I'd prefer for this to take place on the mediation cabal page, as, per above, having it take place on his talk page may invite comment from other parties, and really, this is just between Kirok and I: he posted the essay, and I'd like it taken it down.

Do whatever your conscience thinks is a fair thing however courts in camera rarely serve the public good IMHO. I challenge Mike to take the Devil's advocate stance and rewrite the essay in a way that he would deem it to NOT be a personal attack whilst making the same points. I would contend that if he cannot then he is taking offence to the generic points themselves and is trying to suppress them.--Kirok of L'Stok 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirok, Mike has already spent a great deal of time and effort trying to help you, asking him to rewrite the essay for you as well is unfair. Ideogram 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That has to be one of the more ... interesting things I've heard come out of this guy. — Mike • 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In general Wikipedia tries to encourage comment by third parties, it allows for appealing to a broader consensus. For that reason Mediation Cabal prefers to use talk pages over the mediation page for discussion. Ideogram 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that makes sense. — Mike • 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. I appreciate the patience and time required to produce your lengthy analysis. Kirok, if I may, I feel there is a pattern here, that your hyperbolic style is rubbing Mike the wrong way. If you could find a way to tone that down, I'm sure it would help a great deal. Ideogram 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Starting over

Goddammit, I can't have ONE DECENT DINNER with my father without this whole thing falling apart. You guys are a couple of big babies, you know that? Do you think every mediator is available every waking hour, hanging on your every word? And how do you reward my tender loving care? By making my job more difficult. But, like any responsible parent, I can't just let you hack each other to bits.

Ok. For the moment, we're going to pretend all of the above wasn't said in the inflammatory and needlessly confrontational way that it actually was said and you're going to let ME summarize your positions. At the end, I will give you a chance to CALMLY add anything I left out.

Kirok. First, we are not requiring you to make any huge concessions if you don't want to make them. If you can't give a gift while expecting nothing in return, don't give it. Second, you are new to Wikipedia and it takes a great deal of time, effort, and patience to explain to you the rules and the culture around here, so it's not true you are the only one making concessions. But we don't mind making those concessions because one of Wikipedia's policies is Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (and Mike you'd damn well better remember that).

Firstly I want this over with some time this year. I took the initiative and the posts that followed were a grudging acceptance that that it might be enough to satisfy Mike then a comment about manners and good form. What I expected was a polite thankyou, what i did not expect was a lecture on gracioussness. Is this a Wikipedia policy I haven't heard about? Was I wrong in being the first to make a concession? Please feel free to point out any more mistakes you feel that I have made by trying to cooperate.

You did include the terms "bullying" and "suppression" in your post which was inflammatory. I did chide Mike for not simply saying thank you.

You did? It doesn't seem to have been transferred to the archive then, the only thing I can find on the archive is "Tsk, Mike, even if he's not gracious you can be. Ideogram 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)"--Kirok of L'Stok 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he tried to lecture you on graciousness does not excuse your return fire. Respond to incivility with civility. Ideogram 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To be precise he said it was "done quite ungraciously while spitting a stream of invective." If I turn the other cheek whilst spitting invective I'll get it on the carpet.--Kirok of L'Stok 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not appreciated here. Ideogram 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One man's wit is another man's sarcasm. like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder. I'll remember it isn't appreciated [sigh] It's Saturday night at the Apollo all over again.--Kirok of L'Stok 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I appreciate that you are voluntarily taking on this mediation when you could pass it on to another so don't think i'm starting a beef with you. From what you have just said I get the impression that if you didn't want to you needn't explain Wikipedia rules and regulations, is that so? How could you mediate if you didn't do that?

If I didn't want to explain Wikipedia rules and regulations, I would quit being a mediator. For instance, many Wikipedia participants edit. (Sorry, couldn't resist a little sarcasm myself.) Ideogram 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, so how is this to be considered a concession if it is part of the mediation process? Not that I don't appreciate it but I'm still trying to get a handle on how I'm supposed to consider something which is part of the mediation process as a concession to balance against mine moving the essay off Wikipedia.

You've both been uncivil and we'll never make progress if you spend all your time listing the ways you've been uncivil to each other. That's why I've archived all that nonsense so that we can pretend it didn't happen (but if you get some perverse pleasure out of losing your tempers you can click on it any time).

Mike, if Kirok says it's not about you, don't accuse him of lying. It's quite obvious that the two of you interpret the essay differently, but here's a little clue: neither interpretation is superior. Mike, don't be so arrogant as to think you understand the essay better than the author does. Conversely, Kirok, don't be so arrogant as to think your meaning is always crystal clear.

Kirok, don't you ever, EVER try to impose deadlines or rules of your own on any of my mediations ever again. I happen to like you and think you're a funny and decent guy, but if you try to pull this stunt again I swear I will have nothing to do with you until the end of time.

This is not a deadline or a rule, this is a promise. If anyone, ANYONE - Mike, you or the Queen of Sheba - accuses me of lying they had better have a damn good defense for it. I can be mistaken, I can be foolish, I can be a lot of things but I like to think that I have never knowingly deceived anyone. Tell me I am wrong, tell me that I'm mistaken and I'll debate the point but tell me that I am lying and I will use whatever means are necassary to have that allegation proven or retracted. I was giving him a chance to put up or shut up as they say. If you don't want me to do that I will not give him that chance. One more accusation of lying and I am out of here because I will not be a part of an organisation that condones, sanctions or in anyway supports people who can cast aspersions on my character and not give me the right to defend myself.--Kirok of L'Stok 07:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course you have the right to defend yourself. You don't have the right to set time limits for other people to respond. And I specifically warned Mike not to accuse you of lying again. Ideogram 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What I gave Mike was an opportunity to back up what he said with facts. The deadline was for me. Twelve hours without a return to balance and I would have pulled the plug. In my day job i have some small experience with project management. With important milestones you MUST set time limits so that all concerned can know where they stand. Without timed milestones you get prevarication and failure. As I said, it won't happen again.--Kirok of L'Stok 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike and I were kind enough to tell you not to rush into a concession you didn't want to make for the sake of your major interview. Think about how Mike feels about leaving an essay he believes is a personal attack out in public for even one more day -- and yet he was kind enough to turn down your very tempting offer in order to give you more time. And this is how you repay him.

The purpose behind offering to move it to my Blog was to calm this down so that I could start my article. I have spent virtually all day on this - i should have done it this morning, I suppose but even if I did, would it have stopped Mike from making his unfounded allegation of lying? I'm moving the damn thing as soon as I get home from picking my son up. No, don't thank me! I've had enough thanks for one day.--Kirok of L'Stok 07:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirok, we were prepared to wait for you.

"kind enough to turn down your very tempting offer in order to give you more time." More time for what? You don't understand. It was by my own lack of action that Mike was given the opportunity to take further snipes ("graciousness" etc) I should have done this this morning so that mike could have been given no excuse for escalation. It was waiting that caused this to happen. No more! It is on my Blog in draft so it is not published yet.

I don't think you've finished reading my post, down to the point where I say you don't have to assume he was accusing you of lying. Anyway I'll wait until you return before writing more. Ideogram 07:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirok, let me emphasize again that if you continue to play games by imposing deadlines on others you will find NO OTHER AVENUES FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE open to you -- you will simply not be welcome anywhere on Wikipedia ever again. To be fair, you can live without Wikipedia, but remember Wikipedia won't even notice you are gone.

I've done it once and I'll not waste electrons by repeating why. It won't happen again, if you don't want me to give Mike time to respond [shrugs] sounds strange to me but ok.--Kirok of L'Stok 10:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, I reiterate, to assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, and if you can't do that -- and that goes for both of you -- you don't belong here. Mike, accusing Kirok of lying in any way, shape, or form is most definitely a failure to assume good faith. Why can't you assume Kirok doesn't understand what his essay looks like to you? Kirok, immediately jumping from Mike's "semantic arguments" to an accusation of lying is a failure to assume good faith -- if you read very carefully you'll note he did allow for the possibility that he has misunderstood you.

"immediately jumping from Mike's "semantic arguments" to an accusation of lying" Excuse me? Forgive me if I am wrong, but when did *I* accuse *him* of lying? I asked if he was "being purposefully obtuse or ignoring my posts". I can and I have given Mike an incredible amount of leeway on many subjects. I've acceded to his demands on many points although i now believe he didn't have the authority to give them. I don't recall making statements about his motives which is basically what asuming good faith is all about. He used the one fateful word that I cannot and will not allow any leeway on. Falsehood. If he had used any other word which was not in the thesaurus as a synonym for lying I would have accepted it and moved on. Alas as Frederick was the "slave to duty" I am the "slave to honour".

Just as Mike made a suggestion, I would like to make one myself, that we drop the discussion of Mike's allegation of "falsehood". My honesty on this matter makes me vulnerable to attack. Accordingly I would like to submit that any further comments about my honesty or honour will be an attempt to "push my buttons". Don't do it. I am asking you, Ideogram to police this matter since I have tried to give tolerance on this and it got me censured.

This whole process will go a lot smoother if you can both learn to chalk up possible offenses to misunderstanding rather than evil intentions. That is what Assuming Good Faith is all about.

Now, I'm going to assume you are both capable of Assuming Good Faith and let you add anything you want to. Ideogram 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(note: I overwrote someone's changes in order to get this in -- if it's really important to you, type it in again)

Addressed to either of you: Okay, where do you want to go from here? — Mike • 05:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)