Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Daniel Amen

Cliffswallow-vaulting

~~Who the heck is~~What relationship does User:Cliffswallow-vaulting have with the Daniel Armen article? This account was just created and has no prior involvement with the article. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure User:Cliffswallow-vaulting is 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought but i am not comfortable with guessing - I am looking for User:Cliffswallow-vaulting to state his/her relationship to the article. Especially since 1) User:2602:306:bda0:97a0:466d:57ff:fe90:ac45 is still editing the article under the IP address name and 2) User:Cliffswallow-vaulting named the IP address as a separate party to this mediation and 3) neither user discloses that the two are the same person, anywhere. This is mighty WP:SOCK-like behavior if they are the same. The IP address is a new user (only active since mid-Feb so I imagine that any violation is from being a newbie; ditto all the drama on the talk page and this request for mediation as well. Jytdog (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 and User:Cliffswallow-vaulting disclose in the section below that they are the same person. To the user: you cannot work on the same material under two accounts - this violates WP:SOCK which is a serious thing. You must pick one or the other and must stop using the other. On both accounts, please state that the two accounts are the same person so that you are transparent and please do the same on the Talk page of the Armen article. Please strike the IP account as a separate party to the mediation. I would think that everybody will cut you slack on this violation if you fix your mistake and stop repeating it. If you do not fix it and keep repeating it, both accounts will likely be banned - this is a serious thing. "Trying" is not enough. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the moderation request form needs you to enter all the involved party-names so that the Moderation committee can look at all of the discussions and edits. So they needed my IP name to find those edits and comments. I was not able to make a moderation request without first creating an account, which I only did a few hours ago.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also told you immediately (my first edit ever under my new username on the article talk page) who I was. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC) *Sorry, I meant in the section below.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no disclosure anywhere but here that the two accounts are the same. You provide no dif. I have told you what you need to do to avoid trouble. You are new here and are clearly unaware what a big deal this. If you choose not to fix this, I will bring you to WP:SPI and your involvement in Wikipedia will be finished. In the mediation request, you can leave the IP address as a party for history searching but you must disclose it is the same as you in the mediation request. Your choice. End the SOCK violation or get banned for violating this essential policy. Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was just pointed out on the Amen Talk page that you may have also edited under a third account, 107.218.9.122. If this is also you, you must also disclose this. I cannot emphasize how serious this is, on Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did disclose it (see section below)Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

107.218.9.122 is not an account, as you said, it's an IP address. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 is also not an account. It is how Wikipedia is showing my IP address, I don't know how that happens. I just put in the four tildes when I post. I do know that when I post from home I get this, 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 When I go out to a neighborhood cafe, I post here too, so wouldn't that be a different IP address?Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will say this. 1) You must disclose the identity of the three accounts on the user page of the relevant accounts. 2) You must disclose the identity of the accounts on the mediation request. 3) You have already disclosed the identity of two of the accounts on the Talk page of the Amen article, which is good. Please acknowledge the third there as well. 4) You must use only the named account going forward, if you want the mediation request to stand. If you want to withdraw the mediation request and go back to being an IP address that would be fine too. This is not something you can ignore. We take SOCK very seriously. Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just said, I don't know how it happens. I was just typing four tildes. It may happen that when I go to a neighborhood cafe (that would be a different IP address)--

Those numbers are not accounts. An IP is your location, So I am thinking that I mostly post from home, but if I went to a cafe (which I do sometimes) that I guess would be through a different wireless hotspot and a different IP address. So I think that's why. I'm sorry but I wasn't even thinking about it.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your Talk page. This is not the place. Jytdog (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premature

This case does not meet the prerequisites, we have not "first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page". This is not ripe for mediation. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your case yes it hasn't been a long discussion and you have the right to opt out. Everyone else involved has been engaged in very protracted discussions. I just invited you as a courtesy since you seem interested in the issue and so this way you can input into the moderation process.

I have been editing as an IP but was prompted to create an account in order to request moderation. So my new user name is cliffswallow-vaulting. I will try to remember to stay logged in.2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I'm logged in. I just created this account a few hours ago (had to, in order to request moderation).Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

replying above, in the right section... Jytdog (talk)

What I meant in my original post above, is that there has not been enough authentic, informed discussion on the Talk page. There is lots of room left to work things out, without the drama board. Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for trying, there is no harm in that.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody at Wikipedia is a volunteer, and the people who manage the mediation board are really busy and provide a valuable service, helping resolve disputes where people are really dug in. Based on our discussion on your Talk page, it appears that you may be willing to hit the reset button and talk through the issues with a different approach. If you are, then we should try that before taking up mediators' time... Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely open to trying that!Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee won't take content disputes anyway, so this is a waste of everyone's time. If the complainant had taken advice and read WP:DR then this could have been saved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are frustrated User:Alexbrn but try not to BITE. :) Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but what I did instead is make a mediation appeal, rather than an arbitration appeal. I'm willing to set that aside though, if we can try to reach an agreement on the the article opening. However right now isn't the time. It's about 5 am where I am and I really need to get some sleep. Lets talk tomorrow, or soon, when it works for every one concerned.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so we can let this request just time out and die. I am unwatching this. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK sounds good. yes, we can let it time out. Have a great night everyone! Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]