User talk:Sunray/Archive23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Stieg Larsson edits

I reverted an edit by you in the article on Stieg Larsson in which I changed a reference to his being the second best selling author of 2008 to past tense, since it referred only to the year 2008's sales. You ultimately left my reversion intact (thank you for that, and for not starting a revision war), but suggested that past tense was not appropriate because "his books are the second highest selling of all time", not just for 2008.

Please refer to the Wikipedia article titled "List of best-selling fiction authors". It lists approximately seventy authors, all of whom are estimated to have sold over 100 million copies of their books. Agatha Christie's sales, for instance, are estimated to be between two and four billion copies to date.

According to Larsson's official website (http://www.stieglarsson.com/), all three of his books combined have sold a total of approximately 20 million copies. Ormewood (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

By returning to the original wording, I was/am agreeing with you. I thought that might be evident in my action of reverting myself. Sunray (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Thank you for reverting the edit.Ormewood (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible mediation?

Hello. I´m approaching you, if you are so gentle, about revisions by an administrator called Canterbury Tail, Ben W Bell and posibly other user names. I remember your gentle "saving" of a quotation of Noam Chomsky, "more than a little bit relevant" to the topic of Prohibitionism, which that user I say was about to delete. I feel harrassed and want to avoid another series of personal attacks, but he keeps on following me and, I feel, reverting my edits with frank hostility. Any way, I like helping the project. Nice to say hello, after all this years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcaldev (talkcontribs) 21:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that there is anything I could do. You and the other individual may not agree, but I don't see a problem with his comments. In one case, you changed a statement based on a reference (in the Dissident article). He reverted this--appropriately IMO. Did you not understand why? In the case of the Prohibition article, your change was not an improvement, IMO. It was syntactically flawed and the link you added did not seem to be the correct one. I also agree with Canterbury Tail that there is no need to refer to his previous user name. My advice would be stay calm, be civil, and try to understand the reasons given by him for his actions. Take care. Sunray (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
One more thing: It seems that your first language is not English. That makes it all the more difficult and makes it important to pay attention to what is being said by other editors. Best wishes. Sunray (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to WikiProject Apple Inc.!

Hello, Sunray! I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Apple Inc. We work on improving Apple Inc. articles and would appreciate your help. Thanks! mono 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RFM caught up

Thanks for keeping an eye on things when I was away. If you hadn't, I don't think anybody would have :P. Regards, AGK 00:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that WJB was also doing a lot of work at RFM, and I now feel silly for saying that last sentence. AGK 00:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition. We were both in there and it was nice to know that WJB was keeping an eye on things - he's got plenty of experience. Sunray (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MHP mediation

Hi - I think most folks are waiting for you and Will to post your list of issues to be mediated and suggestions for how to proceed, although some parties seem unable to wait. I would have thought the recent activity would have elicited a response from you or Will. I think at this stage making it clear that both of you are watching and paying attention to what's going on at least on a daily basis (and letting folks know beforehand if you'll be otherwise occupied IRL and for how long) would help defuse things. Granted, this is perhaps more like moderating than mediating but I suspect it just goes with the territory. Having the mediators go silent for days at a time (including a weekend) and ignoring a (albeit relatively minor) kerfuffle is a little disconcerting. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I usually do monitor the talk page daily, but have been unable to do much this past week due to off-wiki commitments. I'm not sure what you mean by "ignoring... a kerfuffle..." I haven't seen anything much out of line for a few days now. Sunray (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The series of edits starting here (in the same section - there are others that are unrelated). Most of these edits violate at least one of the ground rules. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW - several of the folks involved here habitually comment on threads that may or may not seem "current" and even revise their own previous posts. I've found the only real way to keep up is to look at the history and step through every edit starting with where you last left off - annoying, but if you want to make sure you don't miss anything it seems like the only solution. I guess you could diff where you last left off with the current version as well (although this may miss revisions of previous posts which are sometimes contextually important). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Block seems to have overlooked Nijdam's posting, to which I was responding in the first place. This edit may also "violate at least one of the ground rules." The various exchanges will make more sense if you start here, rather than with my response/question. Glkanter (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How? Sunray (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Same as the others, I suppose. The whole topic seems to me outside the ground rules. That's why I responded in the first place. Glkanter (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We apparently have two conversations going at the moment. Part of what I meant by having the mediators "lead a discussion" is controlling the spread of topics. IMO at least one of the reasons we never reach agreement on anything is we are never able to stay focused on a single topic long enough to agree - herding cats is an overused but in this case very apt analogy. I think this likely requires more effort on the part of a mediator. It's like running a meeting where multiple people all want to be talking at the same time. When Andrevan was involved this got bad enough that we instituted a restriction that only Andrevan was permitted to introduce new sections on the mediation page. It simply doesn't work to have eight people each wanting to drive the conversation. In live meetings I've been in using an explicit "parking lot" where any side topics are put seems to help keep things focused. Tangents are acknowledged, but not allowed to derail the focus. Another technique (in live meetings) is the talking stick - I'm not sure if there's an analog of this that would work in an on-wiki discussion. In any event - I think the dynamics of the discussion here could use some attention. If you have any suggestions or techniques you generally use to help focus discussions that would be great. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And, now we have 3 or 4 active discussions with at least as many unresolved questions. Please help. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
And, please comment about this. He's referring to this previous comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cooling jets

Sorry if this was intemperate. I usually ignore this editor's accusations, but in this case it seemed reasonable to respond. His response to this RFC was less than encouraging (all the mentioned behaviors have continued, augmented recently by edit warring). I have been on the receiving end of his low level harassment for over two years and have had enough of his disruption. He is (IMO) the primary cause of most of the disagreement. Despite all of this, I understand your point about not escalating things on the mediation page. I will endeavor to keep my jets cooled. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your cooling it, but why make comments such as: "low level harassment," "his disruption," etc. Would your lot not be better if you avoided personal comments about another editor and took the high road? I'm not understanding the need to engage in this. Sunray (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Before the Second World War

I do not intend to edit a section on World War II, which is disputed here, but would prefer that we be allowed to edit parts of the article are not controversial. It only applies to part biography before the Second World War. Can I get permission to edit that part (Draža Mihailović)?--Свифт (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with you editing, as long as your additions are non-controversial. If anyone objects, we may have to nix it. Also note that your editing may give others the idea that they can make major changes. Hopefully that won't happen, though. Sunray (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps wan´t be a bad idea to show him the version that is being worked in the mediation so he can make his edits directly there. FkpCascais (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
Thank you for setting such a good example and being such a good mediator. Johnfos (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Draža

This photo is not original but it is magnified and cropped from a picture in which there are dozens of people. As such it is not the original portrait photography. Also in the picture is not so good to see facial features. I would replace it with a portrait photograph orginalnaom in the biographical article Draza Mihailovic? Can I get permission to do that?--Свифт (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If there are any objections from mediation participants, we may have to reconsider, but go ahead with that change. I appreciate your attentiveness to the best interests of the article. Sunray (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi Sunray, I got your name from the Editorial Team participant list, and wanted to tell you that we will be testing out assessment metrics in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I documented my Monty Hall mediation accusations very thoroughly

Hi,

Those accusations I made are valid. They have been going on for a long time, and I documented that they are continuing through the mediation.

I don't understand how the opposing editors are supposed to handle the situation, or what is supposed to happen next.

Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, mediation is not some sort of tribunal for making accusations about other editors. The goal of mediation is to assist editors in editing harmoniously and, ideally, collaboratively.
Two other participants expressed concerns about your statements. When I reviewed the concerns raised, I agreed with them that your statements were contrary to the groundrules. Moreover, a statement such as: "I accuse that editor of Gamesmanship. And not editing in Good Faith. And Ownership of the article..." is, in my opinion very clearly a personal attack.
Would you be able to renew your efforts to participate positively and collaboratively in the mediation? Sunray (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah. It's pointless. Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you wish to be excused from the mediation? Sunray (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no good faith mediation taking place. I can't quit something that doesn't exist. Glkanter (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I may, or may not, have violated your ground rules, in response to what I perceived as serious violations of Wikipedia policies that were disrupting the mediation, but I don't agree that I "very clearly a personal attack"-ed anyone. Here's the highlights of the policy. Can I really attack an editor I didn't even name? And the other two editors that took offense? Likely the ones making similar violations in concert. Glkanter (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's put the whole thing back in context. I made my postings after an editor had accused another editor of advocating an NPOV violation. The first editor had suggested a 'simple to complex' order of solutions. Here's the accusing editor's edit summary:

"are you suggesting it's OK to violate NPOV?"

Tell me that 'violate NPOV' accusation in response to 'simple to complex' is not 'Gamesmanship'. That's the disruptive stuff, not my pleas for an end to them.

It may be gamesmanship. (I don't know). But do you not see that accusing someone of gamesmanship in response is pretty clearly a comment about an individual, not about content? Sunray (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should restore my edits, Sunray. And take the appropriate measures to to put the mediation on the right track. Glkanter (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"I may or may not have violated your ground rules." Anyone who is familiar with the dispute would know who you are referring to. What, then is your conclusion? Do you think you have violated the groundrules? Sunray (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, I was accused of attacking an editor, and you agreed and deleted my edits. I have shown that no such attack took place. Haven't I? The ground rules are there to assure a good faith, well behaved mediation. That, unfortunately, already is not taking place. I made this claim of Gamesmanship earlier in the mediation. Maybe Will Beback responded, and you were not aware of it. Why should pointing out a violation of Wikipedia policy be considered an attack? It's not a personal attack, or a lie, or any of those things the policy prohibits. It's a conclusion I've drawn regarding the editor's method of preventing changes to the article that are not to his liking.

You ask, 'Is it Gamesmanship?' Well, there's a reason this mediation is occurring. And it's not because of any normal causes. Something ain't right. I'm showing you exactly how this mediation (and at least 2 years of attempted consensus building) is being purposely perverted, and instead of giving my claim any consideration, you're focusing on my mode of asking for help.

I don't really care about you reverting your deletion of my edits. I want the problem addressed, stopped, and the article improved via good faith, consensus editing. But if you're not going to address the real problem, please restore my edits so that the false, and self-serving, accusations of my attacking another editor are not validated. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No you have not shown that your words were not a violation. I would like you to take ownership for your own actions. About "gamesmanship," my point was that it is not germane whether or not the Rick's actions were gamesmanship. I can draw my own conclusion about that. My concern in the mediation is that all participants follow the groundrules. If you wish to take ownership for your actions we can continue. If not, would you be willing to sit on the sidelines for awhile? Sunray (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You, nor the others, have not shown that my comments are a violation of the 'no personal attacks' policy. Of course I take ownership for my actions. I want my edits restored. I also want to participate in a good faith mediation. If you and Will Beback choose to ignore my concerns, how should I proceed ? Glkanter (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets be clear: that editor's accusation of a 'NPOV violation' really means 'failing to support my preferred POV'. There is nothing 'nuetral' in what he or his allied editors have insisted on. It's right there in Question 10 and the sub section I started. Glkanter (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediators are charged with conducting a mediation that will assist participants in editing harmoniously. Provided that we have followed policy, there is really no where to go to question our decisions.
I don't seem to be making myself clear to you. You seem to not understand the process of mediation. Would you be willing to re-read the ground rules and either re-dedicate yourself to them or take a bench on the sidelines for awhile? I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Sunray (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In that I did not "very clearly (make) a personal attack" as per Wikipedia policy, I will not offer to correct that behaviour. Glkanter (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, that's a pretty good Catch-22. Gamesmanship is recognized and prohibited per Wikipedia policy, but bringing this gamesmanship to the attention of the other editors and the mediator is perceived as a personal attack, requiring discipline. Glkanter (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The part you seem to be missing is that, with respect to behavioral policies, it is all about how you conduct yourself. To accuse another editor of "gamesmanship" (or anything else) is contrary to WP:NPA. If you have a case to be made that is directly related to the mediation, you still need to stick to content. That makes accusations of any sort out of bounds, given the groundrules: NO MORE ACCUSATIONS, LET THE MEDIATORS DETERMINE IF SOMEONE IS VIOLATING POLICY. Get it now? Sunray (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I see that there is no reason to raise these issues again in this mediation. Glkanter (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I now agree with those guys. Here's my latest suggestion. Maybe you could read the 2 solution sections, and see if you like my idea for ending all the rancor? Thanks.

"Who supports putting the Conditional Solution section before the Simple solution section?

Just the way they are in the article today, let's just go ahead and switch the 2 solution sections. The reader will be better served this way, right? And the NPOV violations will no longer exist, right? Who's with me? Glkanter (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)" Glkanter (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses requested

Hi - Can you please respond here and here? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

... and here? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

MHP email

Wow, you're right, something was funky with my email. I'm heading out the door, but I'll get back to you shortly.   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing The MHP

I was hoping for your feedback regarding 'major edits' before I proceeded. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I've put a note on the article talk page requesting editors to refrain from making major edits until we have consensus to do so. Would you be willing to hold off for now? Sunray (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, raising the question there: 'Do you consider the edits I made last week that were reverted and led to the page protection to be 'major edits'? Glkanter (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I was wrong to put anyone, myself included, in the position of having to judge what is a major or minor edit. To make things simpler, I've changed the wording to request editors to avoid editing the article at all. Sunray (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what I posted on the talk page:

"I regret to inform you that I have a 'policy' of not agreeing to self-censorship on Wikipedia. I suggest you have the page protection restored. I'll wait a reasonable amount of time."

Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make an edit to the article, would you be able to present your case on the mediation talk page and get agreement there? Sunray (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have done that over the course of the last week. From the Conditional solution section, I have suggested removing erroneous source attributions, as well as entire sentences/paragraphs which are OR. My intentions that I intend to delete these items at the first opportunity was made very clear to the other editors. My supporting documentation has been presented in great detail.

No, I have not, and expect I will continue to not, be able to get agreement there. Glkanter (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Then would you be willing to refrain from editing? It could lead to edit waring and that would be counter productive. Sunray (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I replied earlier: "I regret to inform you that I have a 'policy' of not agreeing to self-censorship on Wikipedia. I suggest you have the page protection restored. I'll wait a reasonable amount of time." Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal "policies" can be problematic. I guess you will do what you are going to do. We will then see what others do :) Sunray (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true about any dogma. It's a response I devised to counter the wholesale reverts made by those editors about whom the accusations I made you told me were inappropriate for discussion in this mediation. Glkanter (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sunray - I expect you to do something about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, The MHP article protection ends on November 8. What are your plans? Glkanter (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunray - I suggest the protection be allowed to expire, and if problems arise we deal with the problem editor(s) (an article ban at least while mediation is still active might be an appropriate solution). Keeping the article protected during a protracted mediation because one or more editors cannot refrain from making edits related to the topic of the mediation is ridiculous. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's all AGF, Rick. I will review the need for protection. After all, the mediation may well have produced new conditions. Sunray (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

General Draza Mihailovic's Mediation

Dear Sunray, please take solid facts into consideration. General Draza Mihailovic's Chetniks committed a massacre of innocent Serbian women, children and the elderly in a Serbian village of Vranici, near Belgrade, you can read a book from Dragoljub Pantic - survivor of the massacre (there are also photos of his slaughtered relatives) http://www.znaci.net/00001/22.htm . There are hundreds of Chetnik documents of Draza Mihailovic's crimes against Bosnian Muslims and the Chetnik collaboration with Nazis. The documents were preserved in the Archives of the Military Institute in Belgrade. Dr. Branko Latas organized/categorized some of these documents in his book, which you can download here (by chapters) http://www.znaci.net/00001/114.htm (or for individual documents/reports/ etc, you can look bottom of this page http://www.znaci.net/ ). For non-Serbian speaking researchers, you may use Google translate.Yahalom Kashny (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Many war crimes were committed during World War II. and the Chetniks' actions are well documented. What is your point? Sunray (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Focus?

It seems like it's time to try to refocus the discussion at the MHP mediation page. I suggest you put Richard's and Gerhard's comments about the validity and possibly the comments about the topic proposal in collapsed boxes (for now), and focus the discussion on the process first. We'll get to the other issues in due time, but having 4 active threads is the opposite of focus. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW - something I've been curious about. What pronoun is appropriate when referring to you, he or she? I have at times wanted to use a pronoun and have assumed "he" (it's probably the 80% choice among active Wikipedia editors), but since your username really gives no clue I'm aware that either choice might not be right. If you prefer this to be left ambiguous that's fine as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your first point, I've responded to the proposal to use collapsible boxes on the med talk page. I like collapsibles, but I suggest that consensus be obtained before using them. BTW I am endeavouring to respond to each participant who speaks right now, because participants have told me they have felt neglected by mediators. You can call me s/he :) Just kidding, I am of the male gender. Sunray (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I've responded about collapsing discussions on the mediation page (pinging you here just so you don't miss it). The model I had in mind is the talk:Barack Obama page, where new editors often bring up points that have already been discussed to death and back. This isn't quite the same situation but seems similar. I guess we'll see if problems persist. And I appreciate the attention you're currently paying to the page - neglected is an understatement. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Per [1] you said you would "start the discussion". Richard and Glkanter are talking already, and are currently paying no attention whatsoever to a "one post per day" sort of restriction (and have also been discussing things at length on Richard's talk page). When you do open the discussion (and probably the sooner the better) please make it VERY clear what your expectations are about the process. If you could reiterate that discussions on the same topic outside of the mediation page are discouraged I think that might be helpful as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter is already not following the rules, see [2] (hasn't waited a day). I'm tempted to collapse his round 2 comments until you declare round 2 open. Are you OK with that? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No I'm not in agreement with that approach. Sunray (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. I'll leave it for you to deal with however you'd like, although I strongly suggest you don't simply ignore this. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia MHP Article Scope

I believe a fundamental roadblock to bringing the mediation to a conclusion is the scope of the article, hence the scope of the arguments in the mediation.

The article is being treated as an academic article on the Science Of Probability. Which is way too broad.

The article need be no more complex that '1 car, 2 goats' and 'door 1 and door 3'.

The overly broad scope causes the mediation discussions to take off into esoteric discussions of Probability. Its all 'The Emperors New Clothes' stuff.

Please consider my suggestion that the article and mediation scopes be narrowed dramatically. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be willing to propose that on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll make this my round 3 comment. Glkanter (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

I hate to bother you. My opinion is that Nijdam's refusal to contribute to the discussions based on reliable sources rather than his personal beliefs is, and for a long time has been, a barrier to gaining a consensus, and does not follow basic Wikipedia requirements. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem – status

Hi Sunray. Please see my message at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem. Regards, AGK 21:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MHP mediation

Sorry, I have lost patience with the total incapacity of the more extreme editors on the MHP mediation page, on both sides of the spectrum, to make any step whatsoever towards compromise. I withdraw from the mediation. Thanks for trying and for your wise advice. Richard D. Gill (mathematician) Richard Gill (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

To keep the conversation together, I have replied below your message. Please see my talk page. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked, but did not see it there. Did I miss something? Sunray (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
O.K. got it. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

MHP Mediation Gamesmanship and Disruptive Editing

Sunray, do you see any evidence of these offenses from any editor other than Glkanter? Do you see evidence of these offenses from Glkanter? Have you read each diff for the last 2 or 3 days? Is AGK in agreement with your decision to move this discussion off of the mediation page? Glkanter (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to get participants to stop pointing fingers at each other. The primary objective is to get all article editors to follow WP policies and work together. To have editors continually "blowing the whistle" on each other is counter productive. However you want to raise some issues that you think are important. I have agreed to discuss it with you in another forum. I will also request an informal mediation with other participants if that seems necessary. I would be willing to create a subpage of my talk page to do this. I will establish conditions for that once I am clear what the problem is.
I suggest we start with some problem definition by you. Please do not assume what I know or don't know. Just state your concern. I ask that you abide by the groundrules. An important difference is that the content is now the behaviour of yourself and others. Therefore I request that you be as objective as possible. The way to do this is to use I-messages. Would you be willing to now give me a brief problem statement on those terms? Sunray (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Will you answer my yes/no questions above? Glkanter (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My responses:

  1. I won't comment about another participant's behaviour without them being present.
  2. In my opinion, you were creating a sideshow on the mediation page. I regarded that as disruptive.
  3. It is my call.

Now, how do you respond to my proposal, above. Sunray (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it as pointless for either of us to invest our time in such a task. I perceive no value creation, so would not disrespect either of us by continuing. 'Blowing the whistle'? Stating the obvious facts about why the mediation has accomplished nothing whatsoever in any way, shape or form. There's plenty of credit to pass around for that, Sunray. Glkanter (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but then I assume that you will drop all questions of the behaviour of other participants. Are you willing to do that? Sunray (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No. I do not willingly self-censor myself. I think we've discussed this previously. Glkanter (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have offered you a clear choice. The mediation will be governed the groundrules, including focusing on content, not the contributor. If you have issues with other participants or the mediators, I have offered you the chance to deal with that here. If you cannot stick to the groundrules, you will be asked to withdraw from the mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course. I understand the groundrules I agreed to. But I sure don't understand your selective enforcement. Did you read the diffs where AGK agrees that Nijdam, in 2 different ways, is editing contrary to the interests of the mediation? What have *you* done about that?
If Nindam wasn't engaging in these violations, I wouldn't need to 'blow the whistle', would I?
As for me 'creating a sideshow'? I've stated facts, and documented them. And these facts are relevant to the mediation. And AGK agrees with my assessment and concerns. That's no 'sideshow'. That's integrity. But there's no 'groundrule' in this mediation, for editors or mediators, for 'integrity', is there? Glkanter (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You're talking about this on my page, which is what I suggested. I'm sorry but bringing that up on the mediation page is contrary to the groundrules and detracts from the mediation (hence my calling it a sideshow). I am willing to discuss it with you here. Please don't talk about "violations." Just state the behaviour. Would you do that now please? Sunray (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is from Friday, December 3 and sooner:

"On one side we have Martin and Gklanter, in fact layman at the start of this discussion. On the other side Rick and me, more or less experts on the matter. Martin and Gklanter insist the simple solution (car is 1/3 behind the chosen door, hence ...) is completely correct to solve the HMP and want the article to reflect this. Rick and I reject the simple solution as not being correct for the MHP and actually should not be mentioned at all as a solution. Our compromise: mention the simple solution first, but not without the criticism on it. What compromise do Martin and Gklanter suggest?? Nijdam (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"

"Glkanter, what portions of the above comments do you object to? Is it the suggestion that some editors are well-informed about the topics and others are, impliedly, uneducated and ignorant? If so, I would agree that comments of that nature are unhelpful and would counsel the editor that posted the remark to rescind it. AGK 21:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"


"Then there's Nijdam's (in)actions that have accompanied that statement. To wit: Nijdam has not responded to any of my posts for, I would say, well over a year now. I don't see GF there, either.

Then there's his near-total disregard for Wikipedia reliable sources policy substituted for by his own personal opinions, and his belligerent attitude as he disrupts the mediation, and previously the article talk page, as he continues to do on various user pages. ...Or his admin buddy, Rick Block, who *never* see these transgressions, but *always* sees mine. I don't see GF there either... Glkanter (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"

"Which criticisms, and which significant minority (or greater) of reliable sources are you referring to, Nijdam? Glkanter (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"
"I concur with your assessment that Nijdam is not responsive to your comments. Your question to him, made at 01:30, 3 December 2010 and now archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Archive 6#All okay?, remains unanswered. Without responsiveness and a healthy dialogue between parties, mediation is nigh on impossible. AGK 23:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)"

Sunray, what exactly is it you want me to discuss with you here? I'll address admin Rick Block after we've resolved Nijdam's offenses. Glkanter (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a new one from Rick Block today. Apparently 'consensus' means the version of the article he approves of:

"The article as it is now with the "Aids to understanding" section separating the "Simple solutions" and "Conditional probability solution" sections is NOT a consensus version. The move of this section was reverted twice by two different editors (Nijdam and me) and is currently in the position it is only because you (Martin) are apparently willing to edit war about this. If you want to start with the version of the article prior to this change that would be OK - and the proposed text can be shown as a diff relative to this version if you'd like. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)"

A claim of ownership, perhaps? Calling an editor an 'edit warrior', without the self-awareness that it takes at least 2 editors to engage in an edit war? Gamesmanship, bad faith, disruptive. But civil! Glkanter (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you've raised this, I want to discuss your part in the above. You made the following statements:
  • ... I don't see GF there, either
  • ... his near-total disregard for Wikipedia reliable sources policy substituted for by his own personal opinions, and his belligerent attitude as he disrupts the mediation...
  • Or his admin buddy, Rick Block, who *never* see these transgressions, but *always* sees mine. I don't see GF there either...
These comments all strike me as contrary to the groundrules. The one that begins "his near-total disregard..." I consider to be a serious personal attack. How do you see this? What good does it do for the mediation process? Sunray (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I see them as true and well-documented statements. Which you, for some reason, have chosen to *not* address. Which is problematic. You're still avoiding them, even though we're on your talk page. What's up with that, Sunray? The consequences of Nijdam's and Rick's postings, and and your acceptance of them are precluding progress in the mediation. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's more important than my adherence to the groundrules when those posts are presented with the intention of influencing the results of the mediation. Glkanter (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You think that these personal attacks are justified? I'm sorry, but you have not given me any reason to be able to accept that. For instance, would you be able to explain why one wouldn't simply put a neutral note with a diff on one of the mediator's pages stating that you thought a policy had been violated. Instead you seem to be trying to justify a personal attack on the mediation page clearly violating the groundrules and WP policy. I want you to deal with that before we address anything else. Sunray (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To this point, even after months of advocating by me that there is something wrong, you have not acknowledged the existence of the bad behaviour. The moment you tell me *how* to make these reports I will do it exactly as you require. Sadly, and very frustratingly, all you've ever told me is that I am wrong for bringing these documented concerns up at all. I think, but cannot guarantee, that we have discussed these concerns on this or Will Beback's talk page, to no avail. Even with AGK agreeing with me, you've expressed no interest in stopping the offending bahaviours.

So, tell me how I have to phrase things so that you will *finally* do something constructive about these issues. Because engaging me in endless semantics battles, and ignoring the actual mediation violations is quite a waste of my time. Which I have no intention of continuing. Glkanter (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. In my previous post, I described what to do if you want to raise a question about the behaviour of another participant. Was I not clear?
  2. You are still sidestepping responsibility for your own behaviour. Would you please address that now? Sunray (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will practice faux collegiality on the mediation page, while at the same time describing the actual offenses as they occur on this talk page. It is my expectation to follow that protocol until the mediators have demonstrated the ability to identify these negative behaviours more or less as they occur, and actually make some effort to stop them. Glkanter (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, even "faux" collegiality is a start. It has been said that to make a change one may begin to "act" as one would like to be in the future. I'm not sure if you are going that far, but the change will likely be for the better, nevertheless.
With respect these "negative behaviours" that we are alleged to have missed. Would you be able to give me one example that I, or another mediator, had not addressed? By that I mean something not commented on by us, as I don't want to rehash old stuff here. Sunray (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that since I first began making these accusation in August, AND YOU HAVE NEVER SAID OR DONE ANYTHING REGARDING NIJDAM, you may choose any of his postings I have brought to your attention. You could look at my talk page, you could look at his talk page, you could look at your own talk page, you could look at Will Beback's talk page. You could actually read diffs from the MHP mediation page (there's plenty in just the last 4 days!). YOU COULD EVEN READ THE DIFFS I COPIED INTO THIS VERY SECTION ON YOUR TALK PAGE. But no, I will not keep posting old stuff. No thank you. Glkanter (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Monday, December 6, 2010 - Nijdam

This new section continues the Disruptive Editing, with a complete focus on OR, and no reference to sources, despite being asked constantly. AGK has already concluded and commented that this behaviour makes it 'nigh on impossible' to hold a successful mediation. Glkanter (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Why the simple solution is wrong

"I take as the MHP the situation in which the player has chosen a door (say No. 1, or any other number if that pleases you more) and the host has opened a door with a goat (say No. 3 or ...), and the, being confronted with two still closed doors may decide which one to open. The number of the door with the car I call C, the choice of the player X and the door opened by the host H. I assume C to be distributed randomly. Hence P(C=1)=P(C=2)=P(C=3)=1/3. So indeed does the player has a probability 1/3 to pick the car in her first choice. When she decides to switch to door 2, the probability to find the car there is also 1/3, because P(C=2)=1/3 and not 2/3. Of course do most people intuitively consider the new probability, the probability given the new situation, or as it is called, the conditional probability. And indeed is the conditional probability, if the host act randomly, P(C=2|X=1,H=3)=2/3, but NOT because of the argument that P(C=1)=1/3. Nijdam (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)"

December 6, 2010 - Rick Block

Rick Block continues to interpret the reliable sources in a manner that is contradicted by those sources' published English language words. Despite being being proven in error time and time again. This is disruptive and does not show good faith. It strikes me as gamesmanship. I have copied the thread verbatim, below:

"Glkanter - this is what every single source presenting a conditional solution is saying, starting with the conditional solution presented by Selvin in his second letter about the problem - the one where he names it the "Monty Hall problem". The list of supporting sources includes virtually every probability textbook (an online accessible one being Grinstead and Snell). Nijdam's conclusion above, that the conditional probability is 2/3 but NOT because of the argument that the probability of player's initial choice is 1/3, is almost exactly what Falk says (this is the topic of the paragraph in the "Sources of confusion" section that you want deleted). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)"

"No, Rick. That is what you *say* '...every single source presenting a conditional solution is saying...' Go ahead, let's start with Selvin. Please copy and paste the words he uses to support this section's title 'Why the simple solution is wrong'. [bold added for this talk page] Glkanter (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"In the meantime, Selvin's first letter offers only a simple solution to his box B, box A problem. In response to a letter from Monty Hall, here's how Selvin concludes his second letter, which unambiguously contradicts your claim above:"

""Monty Hall wrote and expressed that he was not "a student of statistics problems" but "the big hole in your argument is that once the first box is seen to be emprty, the contestant cannot exchange his box." He continues to say, "Oh and incidentally, after one [box] is seen to be empty, his chances are no longer 50/50 but remain what they were in the first place, one out of three. It just seems to the contestant that one box having been eliminated, he stands a better chance. Not so." I could not have said it better myself."

Here's Monty's full letter:

"May 12, 1975
Mr. Steve Selvin Asst. Professor of Biostatistics University of California, Berkeley
Dear Steve:
Thank you for sending me the problem from "The American Statistician."
Although I am not a student of a statistics problems, I do know that these figures can always be used to one's advantage, if I wished to manipulate same. The big hole in your argument of problems is that once the first box is seen to be empty, the contestant cannot exchange his box. So the problems still remain the same, don't they. . . one out of three. Oh, and incidentally, after one is seen to be empty, his chances are no longer 50/50 but remain what they were in the first place, one out of three. It just seems to the contestant that one box having been eliminated, he stands a better chance. Not so. It was always two to one against him. And if you ever get on my show, the rules hold fast for you -- no trading boxes after the selection.
Next time let's play on my home grounds. I graduated in chemistry and zoology. You want to know your chances of surviving with our polluted air and water?
Sincerely, Monty"

http://www.seaofstars.net/math/montyhall/montyhall.htm Glkanter (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)"

...and following his usually pattern, Rick Block responds to a different, unasked, irrelevant question, then, despite the obvious facts, claims that Nijdam's section title Why the simple solution is wrong is *not* the POV being advocated at all. Gamesmanship, pure and simple. Its Alice In Wonderland. Glkanter (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I read these posts. They are personal opinions expressed on a talk page. As such, I cannot see why you think that they somehow violate policy. They may not advance the mediation, and obviously they are contrary to your point of view, but they are in-bounds, IMO.
I have twice tried to suggest working on some text. That kind of exercise requires editors to provide reliable sources. However, my suggestion, while supported by some, has not been accepted by others. Thus we are left with opinion from both sides. That doesn't get us anywhere. I will make another proposal when it seems opportune. Sunray (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Unbiased observer AGK agrees with my concerns. Your inability to see the violations alarms me. How should I proceed?
Violations? Please show me what violations have occurred, with reference to policy, guidelines or groundrules. Please use this format: 1) Example (diff or quote), 2) alleged violation, 3) relevant article of policy or guideline. Sunray (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

AGK was able to reach the conclusion that Good Faith Editing was not present in the postings I flagged. Why must I prepare an analysis like the one you requested? It strikes me as 'busy work' using the most polite term I can think of. Glkanter (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I said: "With respect these "negative behaviours" that we are alleged to have missed. Would you be able to give me one example that I, or another mediator, had not addressed?"
You then reproduced some text that you alleged to contain violations. I said I did not see it and asked you to show me what violations had occurred. The only thing you have mentioned is that other participants have failed to assume good faith. I have not yet seen evidence of that. Some of the things said are unhelpful and a participant has been asked to withdraw certain remarks. Hardly a violation. Would you agree to now conclude this discussion? Sunray (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've concluded this discussion with you is pointless. Glkanter (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Today is December the 9th, and two other involved editors have, in their own words, described the mediation page as being in a shambles. Of course, a third editor dropped out last week due to 'extreme editors...on both sides'. I would unhesitatingly, without being able to *prove* anything, attribute this to your inexplicable and intentional neglect of Nijdam's increasingly disruptive postings on the Wikipedia MHP article mediation talk page. Glkanter (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You desert

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your remarkable work on Draza Mihailovic mediation, among others things you have done. You took a hard job to handle. Congratulations, Kebeta (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section for Lambda Phi Epsilon and probably other articles

Greetings! About a year back, you were involved in discussions on the article's talk page to remove a controversies section from Lambda Phi Epsilon. An IP editor has been re-adding the section over the last few days. He has also re-added sections to other fraternities' articles. Since you were involved in the discussion before, would you be willing to swing back by the article? Right now, it's a me-vs.-him situation. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: III (December 2010)

Sociology ProjectNews • December 2010
Spreading the meme since August 2006

The Sociology WikiProject third newsletter is out!

According to our April mini-census, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004.

On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Research and wiki-research-l listerv.

Moving from research to teaching, did you know that many teachers and instructors are teaching classes with Wikipedia? This idea is getting support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and some really useful tools have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that!

And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too?

In other news: the a automated to do listing reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active tag and assess project, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400).

We now have a listing of most popular sociology-related pages. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, GIGO holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove Criminal Minds (which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's Industrial Revolution, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit WT:SOCIOLOGY!

Finally, with the reactivation of Article Alerts, we are getting our own here. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more.

Our first task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force) was created (1 June 2010).

If you have basic or better graphic skills, our projects needs a dedicated barnstar (award) (currently the closest we can get is the Society Barnstar.

As always, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.

Authored by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out).

Wikipedia 10