User talk:Seicer

Credit goes to East718.

This is my talk page! Heres a few tips: Pissed about your page being deleted? Deletion review is where you want to be. Rude or inflammatory messages will be removed without notice. Feel free to leave any other comments, messages, critcisms or thanks below! Archives: 2006 | 01 | 02 | 2007 | 03 | 04 | 2008 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008

Mediation does work

New Energy Times citation of the great work conducted through mediation at Cold Fusion. seicer | talk | contribs 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, as I posted at the CF talk page, I don't think we should be celebrating that article. I was as disturbed as anyone by SA's incivility, but that doesn't excuse PC. As one who has tried to mediate these disputes, how do you think we should handle PC's conflict of interest? I question whether he can edit in good faith toward the goals of this encyclopedia given his no-longer-hidden agenda. Gnixon (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is PC? SA is about the only acro I use :P seicer | talk | contribs 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I know who you are talking about now. I didn't realize that he penned the short blub, but I can now see that it is a strong conflict of interest. And now I realize the connection between PC and New Energy Times -- although that doesn't mean it needs to be entirely discredited as a source. Much like SA is on one end of the spectrum, PC is as well. seicer | talk | contribs 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's a good comparison. The more middle-ground folks attending to the article, the better, IMHO. Gnixon (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrectly filed RfC, reverted your edit

In this edit, you deleted another editor's talkspace comment with the summary "Filed under RFC; removing SA's top-line comment since it is now voided". I have reverted this edit, as it is factually incorrect. At the current time the pseudoscience question does not appear on the RFCsci_list, and has not been there since before you authored the incorrect edit summary. I am not familiar with the procedures of creating an RfC, but I do believe that a properly filed one would appear on this list. I would advise you to exercise caution in the future in reverting another editor's comments on a talk page, particularly if there is a chance that you would be deleting a valid warning with a false edit summary. --Noren (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A bot should automatically stamp the RFC page with the Cold Fusion topic, right? I'm not 100% sure on how to submit it for RFC, but I thought that I was doing the right way. You could use a little more good faith Noren, and not accuse me of reverting edits with a blanket statement of merely deleting with an invalid purpose. seicer | talk | contribs 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mention above, I am uncertain how the process is supposed to work, but the lack of a link on the RfC page indicates to me that it has not been done properly in this case. I don't know how to fix it.

I do not see that I 'accused' you of anything here, and I made no mention of any purpose you may have had. I did not make a blanket statement- I pointed out a specific action that you took that was not correct, and described it accurately and objectively. Do you disagree that your edit summary "Filed under RFC; removing SA's top-line comment since it is now voided" was incorrect? SA's comment, "Note: This is not a properly filed Request for comment. Until it is filed as such, the opinions below should be considered in isolation." was not voided, as this was (and is) still not a properly filed RfC. In what way do you parse my comment above such that I was not assuming good faith? --Noren (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I snapped at you. I've been under a lot of stress lately. Yes, I disagree that my edit summary was incorrect but I had assumed that a bot would have fleshed out the RFC page after a tag was applied on the Cold Fusion talk page. I was wrong about the process and will review it further for the next time. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing

Hi Seicer, I'm one of the regular editors on the Alcoholics_Anonymous article and we have a disruptive editor problem for over a year now. He uses several accounts to make incoherent and POV pushing edits (he seems motivated by a grudge against the AA organization) and refuses to discuss rationally his edits. His main account seems to be User_talk:207.194.108.93 and he has been warned (by yourself also) and banned several times, will go quiet for a while then returns to bomb the page with already previously discussed and removed material. Just wondered what we can do?

Thanks Mr Miles (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks until the disputes are settled. I'm not happy with the mangle of IP addresses, either, but there really needs to be a consensus regarding this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seicer , if you haven't noticed those of us who want to add more inforamtion, all of it referrenced , have been cited as disruptive. The purpose of the Wiki is to enhance information, which I myself and others have done only to have it deleted. The studies section in Alcholics Anonymous is definitely POV, Miles had eliminated all the studies negative of AA until Melville Sitter opened a page to contain them. It appears that if the information being added is not Pro AA it comes up for deletion and the editior is cited as disruptive. In fact if you have a chance to read the referenced material you will see there are errors of ommission that paint a somewhat distorted picture of AA history. Myself and other editors have filled in the blanks.

Yours truly, I have added additional information on the Alcholics Anonymous Page for discussiion. P.S. Mr. Miles by his own admission is an ongoing member of this organization. --MisterAlbert (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

USEDfan is back

Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser#Shake 3000. Can you just confirm this so we can be over it already? He is being disruptive again. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was preparing for a block later this evening, but I've escalated it to now due to your findings. Good work. seicer | talk | contribs 22:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to thank you for your looking into this. Thanks again, and have a great day. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to inform you that a checkuser confirmed shake3000 a sock of User:USEDfan Landon1980 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Shake 3000

Hmm, maybe I am looking at the wrong talk page you are referring to. Would you mind directing me in the right direction please. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a super secret page. :) Sorry I didn't make it more clear in the passage. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

/me slaps himself. I could have probably found that if I really tried :P Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hiya, I've been looking at the shenanigans on the Quackwatch article, and trying to identify ways to break the vicious cycle of edit-warring over there. I agree with your protection, but I am concerned that the article spent several days protected, and then couldn't even go unprotected for a day without requiring new protection. I'm looking into some creative solutions which might be allowed via the Homeopathy case, such as a 0RR (no revert) restriction on one or more editors (or maybe on the entire article!). Do you have any opinion on this? Or if not, would it be okay with you if I tried some creative restrictions, and then lifted the protection if I felt that a more orderly type of editing could be hoped for? If the article descended into anarchy again, I could always restore protection, but I think I might be able to make some successful course corrections here. Thanks, and let me know, Elonka 00:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought, how about you let the editors who are trying to edit with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV in mind, actually edit. These are the editors who keep getting reverted by Levine, II, Jossi and Lugwids with the excuse of "whitewashing" (amongst other less than amusing accusations) while ignoring all the conversations and many thousands of edits that have occured on the talk page. The fact is QG made some edits, Levine reverted them, SA (and myself and others) backed up QG, while II, Lugwids and Jossi backed up Levine. In the meantime QG has justified all his original edits many times (and ignored) on the talkpage. So who is the actual original reverter? And why is it that those who continue with the reverting back to the old edits are not slapped with the restrictions that Elonka enjoys metting out? Shot info (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And with an attitude that prevails in that sense, with no respect towards community opinion -- or for that matter, opinions that differ from that of your own -- it is no wonder that Quackwatch is protected as often as it is. With that said, I'll propose at AN tonight stricter sanctions for gross abuse of policies -- including edit warring and incivil disruptions, that fall within a reasoned guideline that has been adopted at other, similar articles. That's not terribly unreasonable, and would at least allow the page to be unprotected for longer durations. seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You will find that most of us have this attitude due to frustration at the lack of admin oversight...or interest...SA being blocked for "edit warring" notwithstanding the actual evidence (ie/ who started the edit warring with their fingers in their ears going "lah, lah, lah, I'm ignoring the talkpage"). Most of us have been asking for the enforcement of the Homeopathy Community restrictions for some time....and ignored. Ignore people for long enough and you end up where we are. Shot info (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the frustrations. The same behavior was prevalent at Cold Fusion -- along with the frustration, but the fingers could be pointed at both sides. Neither wanted to compromise; neither wanted to engage in meaningful dialogue on the talk pages without essentially discrediting the other in heated exchanges; neither held any belief that anything would be resolved. I'm not saying that SA and the pro-science crew are entirely at fault, and the blame can be shifted to both sides here, as core policies were violated, but edit warring over this and disregarding other opinions is not the way to go about doing it.

SA is a different apple in the barrel, it seems. He has numerous blocks for edit warring -- mainly because he feels that he needs to push the pro-science agenda to the fullest extent. A great editor, but sometimes a little over-zealous who can come off as a hot-head or someone who doesn't compromise. It came to the point that he had severe sanctions lobbed against him, and any tiny infraction can lead to a stiff penalty. I do not wish this to happen to other editors -- on both sides, and I would like to take the opportunity to work with you guys on this issue.

But I don't know if I have the trust of all of the parties involved. SA and I have had disagreements in the past -- because I was a mediator for Cold Fusion. The appearance was that I was "anti-science" because the outcome of the mediation was a version that he fundamentally disagreed with. That's not the case -- as it was one of compromise. And I feel that is what needs to happen at Quackwatch, and something that can be achieved. I wouldn't mind taking up the case at MedCom if you want to file one. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of SA, the last few blocks really where uncalled for, and his last block was not overturned, "because he has all these blocks" without admins been more informed about the inequaties in the last batch of blocks. I can see that SA just doesn't care anymore. Most "science" editors don't anymore which is why the push is on my the POV pushers in QW and other locations. From other RfMs I have seem "Compromise" equals "balance" which equals giving prominence to non-notable subjects. You can see this in QW where some editors carp on about "it's referenced" while ignoring the fact that it is undue weight and just not notable. Having it referenced doesn't override the fact we are writing an encyclodia. Yet admins swallow this line, and believe removing the undue weight = an edit war. Come on people, the information shouldn't been put in their to start with... removing it is not an edit war. Shot info (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Gufw (software)

Hi, I'm astur from asturian wikipedia. You are the third person that I contact. (sorry about my english level) First, a bot advised me, about the text that I had put in the article, it was a copy. Yes, I know it. I know the rules, the problem is that i dont know english very well, and the only thing I wanted was to edit an article about a software, and complete it step by step or with the help of someone. After the advice, I cut some sentences, for not to violate the copyright (with the hopeless that someday someone will complete the article, with better level of english than me..). Now, (less than 20 hours) the user User:NawlinWiki has deleted the article completely. He says: "This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia". It's crazy! There a lot of articles about software in Wikipedia. The software is free software, and it's the first GUI (Graphic user Interface) to manage iptables for Ubuntu. The article is not about a person or ¿band????, the only name that appeared is the name of the author, like in other articles. What about Deluge (software), or Kstars...(GNU General Public License) And I wanted to complete the article later and show you that the article is valid. I would to talk with User:NawlinWiki, but his talk page is blocked. Can you help me? --Astur (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)