User talk:Sdedeo: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
== PRT mediation == |
== PRT mediation == |
||
So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is. |
|||
Sdedeo, |
|||
And don't even go to the trouble of revoking my priveleges, because I'm outta here! |
|||
Avidor has added the NPOV to the personal rapid transit page again, along with a new set of demands. I have written a long note detailing my argument on [[User_talk:KrazyCaley]]'s page. The basic complaint is that Avidor is an extremist and will never stop attacking this page. Please help if you can, because unlike him, I and the other people involved ''want to do it right'' and Avidor is turning it into a mockery. |
|||
Please, read carefully what I have written on KrazyCaley's page. Avidor stops at nothing. He will do ''anything'' to advance his extremist cause. Last week, just after he challenged neutrality, he posted on at least one blog that ''the article was written by PRT crackpots, its neutrality is being challenged.'' He never mentioned that '''he''' was the one challenging! He was using the neutrality challenge to ''advance his extremism'' by implying that some neutral body had declared the article biased! |
|||
Do you not see the duplicity in all this? He is using this neutrality challenge as a tool to advance his cause! ''That's why he was so vague in his demands,'' because he ''wanted'' the challenge to stay! He is turning Wikipedia into his own personal propaganda weapon. |
|||
And Avidor has a history of doing this kind of "double-talk" in order to make it look like there's a consensus pushing an argument. For example, he has been known to register with multiple usernames on transportation forums, so he can gang up on PRT supporters. ''This is how this man works.'' Please do not allow it to go further. |
|||
He is using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Please stop it, not because it hurts PRT (which is going to happen whether Avidor likes it or not), but because, fundamentally, it hurts Wikipedia. He is dragging it through the mud. |
|||
Thank you. |
|||
[[User:A Transportation Enthusiast|A Transportation Enthusiast]] 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi ATE -- I am all tied up with other mediations right now, but I would bug the person officially in charge of the mediation to get going. I strongly suggest reading my "tips"; I have found that following them religiously leads to solutions. However, you and Avidor may have sufficiently angered each other that it takes a long time; calling someone an "extremist" is not going to help you solve problems. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] <small>([[User:Sdedeo/advice|tips]])</small> 07:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Really, Sdedeo, how can someone come to consensus with someone who is incapable of reasoned discussion? I honestly don't have time for this anymore. Really. |
|||
::You evaluated the page, removed the NPOV, made suggestions, and we worked on it. That's the way it's supposed to work. And now here we are, back at square one: him challenging and making demands. |
|||
::Forget it. As far as I'm concerned, let him turn Wikipedia into his own personal blog. I'm done with it. |
|||
:[[User:A Transportation Enthusiast|A Transportation Enthusiast]] 07:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:01, 2 February 2006
archive contains earlier material from the talk page; August 2005 -- January 2006. Please add new comments and queries at the bottom of the page. Unless something is urgent, I will generally reply to comments on this same page. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Sago
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner; I just lost track of a few pages over the last few days, and Sago was one of them. In any case, I think the article has been greatly improved since my last edit, and I no longer have any objections to the paragraph in question. (I'm still rather strongly against the use of blogs as sources in general, but there are other, better places to have that debate, I think.) Best, --Aaron 23:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Aaron! Your criticism was important, in particular because it forced me to think about where the criticisms should be better placed to achieve NPOV. Sdedeo (tips) 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
New main page draft
Hello! I noticed your negative comments regarding the proposed redesign, and I'd like to invite you to review a radically revamped revision, and to post your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft#Proposed_version. Thanks! —David Levy 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Web specific content, false claim of site rank
You voted to keep Psycho-Babble (virtual community). I've already offered ample explanation on the vote page, but I want to clarify my stance, since I've been one of the major editors in the article I voted to delete. I did not vote to delete the page because editors acted badly, I voted to delete it because it doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria for Web content. The arguments I offered in my lengthy explanation explained why those criteria are useful guidelines.
Being ranked second most popular mental health site on the Web by an automated ranking system doesn't comprise a major award, which would meet the guidelines. Instead, the rank is an artifact of the forum owner's savy in presenting his particular forum to the ranking engine, and to some extent his authoritative declarations contrary to fact that the status is solely a result of traffic at his forums.
The ranking software used to describe Psycho-Babble as second most popular does not distinguish the Psycho-Babble forums described in the article from any of the other sites in dr-bob.org domains. Traffic in the dr-bob.org domains ranked second most popular mental health site includes visits by students to the doctor's virtual pamphlet collection, which is not part of the subject of the article. Other schools offer on-line health assistance to students, but don't include the Alexa toolbar in their site code, so they are not ranked along with other ostensibly "mental health" sites - they are academic sites. What's more, the doctor has claimed contrary to Alexa's explanation of how they rank sites (by domain only) that the data that make his site second in the ranking is not the same as the data that indicates his is now only the 90,000th most visited site, and declining in rank. What these statistics don't tell us is how much of this traffic is the result of persistent activity by a comparatively small number of visitors to his site. His site has gained ranking in Alexa because he uses the Alexa toolbar, which other sites don't, because he operates his site as an open site for search engines, whereas other virtual self-help communities operate behind passwords or as e-mail lists. We have no good information about the scope of on-line self-help groups, and the editors from Psycho-Babble have show no interest in contributing to general articles about virtual communities or about on-line self-help groups other than Hsiung's. The criteria for Web content attempt to explain how automated statistics for Web sites can construct a false notion of notoriety.
Without the "second-most-popular-mental-health-site" claim, there is nothing about this site that meets the criteria for articles on Web content. The psychiatrist writing here about his own site has not participated in editing articles about a broader topic about which he could potentially contribute expertise, thereby immersing himself in a community of similarly qualified editors who could balance whatever narrow focus his expertise might offer. Instead of contributing to an article about virtual self-help communities that could be a hand-out at the his public presentations, he encouraged members of his group to edit an article specifically about his site. His involvement then needs to be considered in the context of guidelines against vanity editing. The difficulty of balancing vanity edits is also well understood among Wikipedia editors. ProveReader 22:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to wax so wordy, but I checked some facts more carefully, because you said "if the following is correct" that Pscyho-Babble is the second-most-popular mental health site, it is noteworthy. If you revisit the vote for deletion, you can read my extensive documentation that the claim to be the second most popularamong 5,710 Alexa-ranked mental-health sites was based on the site's standing among only 20 of those sites. ProveReader 00:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi ProveReader -- thanks for the info; I've changed my vote on the AfD. Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Pheonix Labs
The legal threat was made off-Wikipedia, on OTRS. Ask User:Michael Snow for the specifics. Thanks.--Sean|Black 07:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't know the specifics. Please direct any other questions User talk:Michael Snow. Thanks.--Sean|Black 07:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You bastard!
It's not like I didn't pull an allnighter to find a new medcab coordinator last night, but you're gonna set me to work in my half befuddled and mindspilled state? Sounds like Elian and Jimbo. I'll have you know that jimbo ultimately rebelled Elians dictatorship however :-P
Now then hush about dragging me in, I'll just saunter on by... :-) Stick around and help out if you can, please :-)
Kim Bruning 23:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hee hee, poor Kim. If it makes you feel any better, I have a dissertation as well! Just turned in a final draft to my advisor, which is why I've had time to ball around on wikipedia. I won't judge you (you bastard) if you bail on the DPT case! Sdedeo (tips) 23:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- You mind if I get some sleep? :) I'll look into the case some more tomorrow. I've already speed-read some stuff on it. :-) Kim Bruning 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you may have four hours. :) I don't know if we can do anything, those guys have already been through an RfA. Sdedeo (tips) 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- One way to find out, but tomorrow :-) Kim Bruning 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
And then the first thing you do in the morning is tell everyone I'm a mediator. (see above under "hush about dragging me in"). You enjoy punishing me, don't you, young padewan? Now I immediately get told off, -as a mediator- for interfering in the page. Ah well. In the old days we did this 20 miles both ways, uphill, in driving snow, so what the hey.
Oh, but what's this about "best of luck"? You will be mediating here. Now's your chance to relive those good old days. Kim Bruning 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, since we're cooperating on this, it might be handy to discuss on irc or aim, or msn. Do you have a client for any of those? Kim Bruning 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, and I love grumbeling. So take the above with a couple of shakers of salt, if you hadn't already ;-P Kim Bruning 18:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, I'm new at this so didn't realize how touchy these things could get! I will do my best to help out; I don't actually IM or even e-mail that much -- try to keep wp time to editing alone. I will be around though, and watch the page on my watchlist; I'll try not to step in for a little bit! Sdedeo (tips) 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Long Live the Mediation Cabal
Thank you for your help mediating on the Reed College page. I know it wasn't easy. -- Gnetwerker 23:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Seconding Gnetwerker
And what a rare pleasure it is to do so. My only problem is that you have (inadvertently I think) archived discussions that were not directly related to the drug use section under that heading. You may not have noticed amid all the back and forth between Gnetwerker and myself, but I took strong exception to his having done something similar a few days ago, and made it clear that, while I fully endorse the drug use section we all agreed on, I did not endorse moving my comments about subjects other than the drug use section hidden elsewhere. What complicates the issue slightly is that, for example, the discussion regarding Gnetwerker's official position with the college and my request that he recuse himself morphed into a discussion of the drug policy. I have, therefore, gone through and culled out any reference to the drug section, and left the parts unrelated to that discussion. (At least, I hope I have. If I made a goof and left something in/took something out I shouldn't have, it was inadvertent.) If you have concerns about this, Sdedeo, I hope you won't hesitate to let me know. IronDuke 03:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much both Gnetwerker and IronDuke. Being "on the other side" is very interesting, and I encourage you to try your hands at medcabal yourselves. It is definitely a learning experience. IronDuke, re: archived comments, I don't have a strong position on that sort of thing, and in general if someone objects to a talk page "refactoring", it's best to err on the side of not archiving stuff. Sdedeo (tips) 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Sdedeo. Despite your excellent efforts, after you left, Gnetwerker deleted all of my comments from the talk page, and has now begun to systematically revert all the other edits I made. I think the easiest way to resolve this is to go to arbcom, which is what I'm doing. Hope this doesn't waste too much more of your time. IronDuke 16:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Some of the new edits seem to have some NPOV problems, but I believe it's nothing that couldn't be resolved with patience and respect. I don't believe either of you have bad motives. I would suggest bringing it up on the talk page and doing your best to be conciliatory; try reading the "tips" after my signature. Arbcom results are in my experience mixed: they generate so much bad will that little changes after the fact. Best of luck to you both. Sdedeo (tips) 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Sdedeo. Despite your excellent efforts, after you left, Gnetwerker deleted all of my comments from the talk page, and has now begun to systematically revert all the other edits I made. I think the easiest way to resolve this is to go to arbcom, which is what I'm doing. Hope this doesn't waste too much more of your time. IronDuke 16:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please read the (one) finding and remedy of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine; as I read them, the approach you proposed is what ArbCom had in mind. It is also what I have long desired for this article, so I may be misreading; do let me know. Septentrionalis 04:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's pretty much it. My guess is that Ultra is very attached to his version of the article, and is unwilling to "let go." It can be tough to deal with this aspect of wikiness. Sdedeo (tips) 04:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
JW mediation
Greetings Sdedeo, In the Mediation Cabal, the Jehovah's Witness mediation is still active; what is the reason for moving it to the archive?
Thanks, SteveMc 17:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi SteveMc -- sorry, made an error! I'll move it back; just was trying to do a whole bunch at once. Sdedeo (tips) 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
== Request for Mediation Assistance ==
Sdedeo, I need to ask for your help to mediate a minor dispute between myself and a user called Exploding Boy. I made a post earlier today to the Homosexuality Talk Page, which Exploding Boy removed. He claims he archived it, which from what I can see, he did not. I replaced it, and he removed it again and left a note in the edit history to state He had archived it. I asked on his talk page, and again, he has denied deleting my comments. His claim to have archived the page as a whole does not stand up, since mine was the only comment which disappeared.
He also states that maybe someone else removed the comment. This also does not uphold, since between my comment posting, and me replacing it the second time, the only editor was Exploding Boy. I feel that the user is not being entirely truthful with me, but I cannot state this directly to him, since it would amount to a personal attack, which I will not commit.
Your assistance in mediating with this user would be welcomed.
Regards, Thorsteinn A. D. Malmjursson 01.02, 29th January 2006 (UTC) Talk to Thor
- Hi Thor -- I looked at your comment [1]. Please remember that wikipedia is not a place to discuss your own opinions; it is generally not appropriate to use talk pages to discuss your own personal feelings about the subject of the article. I can't tell if EB made a mistake in thinking he had archived something, but in general, your comment (as well as AFAICT many other comments there) do not belong. Sdedeo (tips) 07:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
NYT links
Okay, that makes sense. Bye ;) --GTubio 13:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
CS mediation
Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to deal with the Computer science mediation. It no doubt required a lot of patience on your part, and I for one appreciate it. Nice work! --Allan McInnes 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Allan; I find mediating a very interesting experience, and I encourage you to try your hand at medcabal yourself! Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I second that, thanks for efforts, I believe they will lead to a lasting solution. --24.42.191.204 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sdedeo: Thanks for checking in and giving your thoughts. I admire the spirit behind your proposal, but don’t think it will work in practice. For starters, I very much doubt that Gnetwerker will voluntarily give up editing the Reed College page for any length of time, and even if he did, what would happen when he and I returned? I supposed you could argue that by then tempers may have cooled, but, speaking for myself, I think I can say that this isn’t a matter of temper or ego. Also, and this may be less clear, the main thrust of this RfA is not to “punish” Gnetwerker, it’s to settle a question that WP should be addressing: how close is too close when it comes to editing a page you have a personal stake in. Even if arbcom reject my thoughts on this, it will still be valuable as a signpost for what is and is not acceptable.
- On a more minor level, there are the civility and personal attack questions. Again, this is not about me having bruised feelings, but rather, I see instances on WP where people become discouraged with editing because they are dealt with harshly or in a nasty manner by other editors. Lest you think I’m just picking nits, you should check out the evidence page as far as NPA goes [[2]]. If I thought Gnetwerker was going to change, I’d probably forebear from the RfA. The amount of time I spent just finding the diffs has about sucked the brain out of my skull.
- Is it possible, as you suggest, that the arbcom will also chastise me for personal attacks? Indeed it is. Is it likely? Perhaps I’m not the best judge, but I doubt they will, unless they accept Gnetwerker’s argument re: affiliation as a personal attack (which I think would be odd). And if they do, perhaps it is because (without ever meaning to or intending to) I did somehow attack Gnetwerker in a proscribed way, and being told this by a neutral party could help me see the error of my ways.
- Thanks again for your input. IronDuke 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
PRT mediation
So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is.
And don't even go to the trouble of revoking my priveleges, because I'm outta here!