Wikipedia:Perl Mediation/NewMediator

jbolden unreasonably added my comments to this page, implying that I want a new mediator. Oddly, he did not move the comments here that actually *asked* for a new mediator. I've never asked for a new mediator. I am simply criticizing the current one. As such, I've moved my comments to a more appropriate page: Talk:Perl Mediation/Bad Mediator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudgenet (talk • contribs) 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[moved from user talk to help contain the discussion]

I liked you idea of the /Links. I didn't like the page moves from "XxxxYyyyyy" to "Xxxxx Yyyyy". More importantly I don't want the (what's now the archive page) to play that prominent a role. Just remember for future that people have pages on their watchlists. BTW did you want to join in on the whole mediation thing? jbolden1517 ^Talk 10:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The archive page should play a very prominent role. People should be able to read what's happened so far in order to come to their own conclusions. As to the move, it would have shown up in people's watchlist that it was moved. So what's the big deal? People are smart enough to follow the trail. Naming all these subpages "XxxxYyyyyy" is stupid. WikiWords are pointless in this place; why be pointless when you can be clear?

I don't want to be involved in the moderation process because, like Pudge and Scarpia, I have no confidence in you as a moderator. It's patently obvious to even the most disinterested of observers that this is a case of -Barry- being chronically right and trying to fight consensus. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above content is not a ground rule and does not make policy. A specific page has been set up for personal attacks of this nature (and this mediation is the first I've ever done where I've needed one). You can repost there. Since you've refused to be involved I would appreciate no further assistance without first discussing it.

jbolden1517 ^Talk 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. If this is the first time you have seen it, that might explain why you do not understand that this is not a "personal attack," at least, not of the forbidden sort normally referred to. A mediator's personality, performance, capability, and so on are on-topic matters for discussion in any mediation process, if they become a problem, as has happened here. When you keep calling these things personal attacks and vandalism, you express an ignorance about what mediation is. Earle did nothing beyond expressing his lack of satisfaction in your performance, and stating reasons why. This is a perfectly acceptable part of any mediation process, no matter much you assert otherwise. Pudge 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have bolstered my confidence in jbolden1517's mediation skills a little if he had simply moved my comments above from the "ground rules" page to wherever it was he wants "personal attacks" - i.e., criticism - to go to and got on with actually replying. Instead, he chose to move it back to my user talk page and chastise me. Go figure. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]