User talk:Paul gene

/Archive 1

Please do follow my requests

Hello!

I asked of you:

"If you just stick to those questions, and don't respond to others quite yet, there's little that can go wrong, I think.".

However, after that point in time, you did respond to people outside the questions I asked you at WT:MEDRS. In the immediate future, could you please refrain from doing so? Thanks!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I to take it that you will continue to respond to people outside the questions I'm asking? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you intend to answer the question I asked you please? (see below) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Answers to your questions:

• Would you please go ahead and educate me on what you are trying to do?

  I'm acting to un-knot the situation in a systematic manner.

• Please provide the links to the ground rules.

  Ground rules are what I agree with you, and of course the body of wikipedia policy

• Will the unproductive accusations in "wikilawering" and "forum shopping" be dealt with swiftly and fairly?

  I'm asking you to not respond outside your section, so that such accusations can have no (further) ground. This is a temporary measure for your protection, and is used quite commonly for that purpose. If people continue to accuse you unjustly, it becomes easy to prove and easy to deal with.

• What about references to irrelevant essays with inflammatory names like WP:Fanatic or WP:Idiot?

  See above.

• If I am supposed to keep mum except for answering your questions, how fast my response is expected?

  Take your time.

• Why other people are commenting on the page on related and unrelated issues?

  Because it's a wiki. I do not control other people's actions, nor do I wish to.

• Why Sandy and Colin can respond to others' comments and I cannot?

  With due respect to yourself (but frankly), it's because they're (mostly) not shooting themselves in the foot.

• How quickly will you respond with your following questions?

  Probably within 24 hours, for the coming couple of days.

• You nudge me repeatedly and then disappear for several days.

  I'm not on any particular schedule. I'm a volunteer not an employee. As a general rule, if you answer quickly, I tend to respond quickly. If you don't respond and I happen to be away, there's not much I can do.

• How about contacting UnaSMith and NBauman who presented reasonable arguments against the "guideline"?

  Feel free to introduce me to them! :-)

• Are you sure you are impartial?

  So far this is pretty much routine mediation for me.

Here's some action points I need to have your word on. When editing in a consensus environment I need to be able to trust on people's word :-) :

• On WT:MEDRS, for now, please only answer questions I ask you (and only make edits I ask of you too). Directly answering others has clearly been unproductive at the moment, so it can wait a little while. This prevents people from accusing you unjustly, among other things. So far you have not followed this recommendation. May I have your word that you will do so in future please?
• I'm going to unprotect the page soon, and ask you to make some edits. Please only edit when I ask you to for now. Can I entrust this to you?
• Please contact UnaSMith and NBauman and cordially invite them to answer the 4 questions as well. Can I entrust this to you?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes to all three questions. For this arbitration to succeed no incivility must be allowed. So, I hope the ground rules will be same for Sandy and Colin as for me. So far you admit to favoring them - you insist that they have the right to answer others, while I do not. This post [1] also worries me a bit. But I will humor you for now. Paul Gene (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Officially this is called an informal mediation (I'm not allowed to claim I'm arbitrating anything).

I customize ground rules or what have you on a per-person basis. Currently I'm actually leaning in your direction somewhat, to counter-balance the majority; but I can't be seen to lean too far, or others will see me as non-neutral. Sandy, Colin and others aren't silly of course, and they can tell what I'm doing, so I have to continue to reassure them that I'm just as much on their side. And that's as it should be :-). It's just a tricky balancing act to pull off.

As to why I'm asking you not to say much for a bit? Technically, I have no direct power to compel you; but I think it's a wise idea if I do most of the talking for a while, if that's ok with you. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points all around. I am silly of course, but I'll try to be patient. Be careful, lest some people will see that I am on your side. :)Paul Gene (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the spirit, Paul :) Sorry to butt in, as far as I can see Kim works in a methodical way, and the results of his work will be fair. I know you must be itching to write some responses, but I think this is the correct course of action at the moment... In the meantime, if your feeling frustrated, take a look at my recent suggestion on MEDRS, re sub article exploring the differences between different fields of science with reference to , er, references :( I 'think' it's a good idea, whether anyone else does is yet is to be seen! but I think you're ideally suited to knock up a draft of said essay? LeeVJ (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. In real life I am busy right now with a galley of an article for a major journal in the area. There are other projects in the real life I am thinking about. WP is of lesser importance than the real life for me. Why do we have such a vehement disagreements at MEDRS? What puzzles me is that I am a natural scientist so there should not be much difference in our prospectives. Maybe because most of the peoples at MEDRS are laypeople or biologists or MDs, and nobody is actually is involved in a medical research? Paul Gene (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Concentrate on that there sea-cruiser then, our real-life exploits take precident over wiki - it improves over time like a indominatable organism ( o.k. a little prod here and there helps !) I'm a comp/maths guy and as for academic accuracy, any references were checkable by anyone with the tools / brainpaower so were taken as read ( a false claim would quickly be debunked any of an army of geeks :) ), I have close friends in zoological research, these papers are ok but you can see some influence of commerce/industry/politics toward the top end of studies (i.e. commisioned studies) but still people involved are mostly honorable and dedicated. In editting the HD article I've come across so many papers - a can see a lot of them are by pharmaceuticals trying to up their shareprice by hinting at a cure or possibly a management drug which is big bucks ( expensive drug * length of time taken(15 yrs+) = £££$$$$) so I must look at these areas with varying cynicism/critisim. I also was invovled with a large number of surguries/doctors for a couple of software projects , and off the record - and seeing countless (untraceable) patient notes, they have a hell of a time after the media release most trash story about any health issue, with waves of hypochondriacs / mis-informed patients arriving. Sometimes when they've got their homework right the health articles can help, but it's the bad ones that make gps life hell, I guess WP:medicine has a fair share of GPs, but it also has coverage of all levels, different areas of science, and different positions in the food chain of corporate sponsorship. I think that's the problem ... and the strength! LeeVJ (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In the mean time, Eublides made a proposal I'd like to check with you. Can you answer my question here please? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

update The page has been archived, but I've maintained the existing thread. Can you answer in your section please? Thank you. --Kim Bruning (talk)

I did.[2] Please let me know if there are other questions I need (or can) answer. Paul Gene (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll see what I can do. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Status

I only have a small question for you today on WT:MEDRS. As promised, at least 1 reply per 24 hours, even if it's just a small one.

I've been busy talking with several other people today. <phew /> what a job!

It's worth it, however. As people start answering the 4 questions, things are starting to drop into place. Have you made any progress in inviting UnaSMith and NBauman? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I left messages with the 4 points on their Talk pages. So far, no answer. I also asked if Eversince wants to formulate his views along the said 4 points but he is not sure if he wants to get deeper involved. I also answered your last question on the MEDRS page, see [3]. To avoid the stalemate I tried to expanded a bit on my views. Please tell me if that was inappropriate, and I will scratch my answer. Paul Gene (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS

I'm glad you find the concerns reasonable (tho I wouldn't quite put it how you have as a separate existence issue per se), I am aware that's an option but I'm not sure what would resolve things (as I see them) and I'm just communicating how things seem to me and listening. Incidentally I think you have been within your rights to insist on having your and others views properly and respectfully discussed and addressed as part of the development of consensus. EverSince (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)