User talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching

We can use this[edit]

This page will keep an archive as well, which I'm sure will be handy as we move forward. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD's[edit]

Hello, you recently asked me to be more cautious about my CSD's. I'm honestly sick of being told that I can't CSD right, so, care to tell me how to do it correctly? There's something I need to learn here, and I'd like to learn it before going down in flames at RfA for not understanding CSD. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed by your post. Now, with some distance, I realize that my post was actually quite offputting (I can explain why, if you’d like to know), and I am positively surprised that you reacted with this request.

There are several ways to approach CSD:

One is by the letter of the policy, which is what I tried in my post. In that case, the article stated it was about a “national organization with branches all over India”. This is an indication of importance, so A7 does not apply. (Please don’t hesitate to ask if that is not immediately evident to you.)

A second approach is by understanding the intention of CSD: The reason why we started CSD in the first place was because our normal deletion procedures got clogged by a deluge of obviously worthless articles. As the policy says, this is only a bypass. In practice, you can use this approach like this: Compare the article in question with the kind of articles for which the policy has been written. The kind of articles you come across all the time, you know what I mean. If it is different from what you see all the time, then CSD was not meant for it. Since you write that you are an expert mathematician, let me explain it mathematically: In our case, I see four characteristics or criteria C_1...4: The article was (C₁) outside of our area of systemic bias, (C₂) about a national organization, (C₃) about a charity, and (C₄) better written than most CSD articles. The probability for each of the criteria C_1...4 is at most about 1/4. Multiply them, and you obtain at most 1/256. Articles that are in such a specialized class are not what CSD has been written for.

I personally use a third approach, based on the understanding that CSD should only be used “for articles with no practical chance of surviving discussion.” If you’re curious, I can write about it, but it may be more appropriate for executing CSDs than for nominating them.

Let me know which approach you like best, and, of course, don’t hesitate to ask me with any questions or to tell me if what I wrote doesn’t make sense. — Sebastian 05:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be surprised, I'd liken deletion to a sword. An elegant tool when used right, but worthless metal when used wrong. I'd rather be elegant.

When it comes to importance, I had generally assumed that such notes of importance needed to be backed up by verifiable sources in order to be taken at face value. After all, wouldn't it be quite easy to create an article that says “Bob Inc. is a multinational tire company”? Something I used to actually do, back when I found vandalism more fun. Without WP:RS, I would have generally figured such a claim is worthless, but if you have a Forbes article saying so... Should such claims be taken at face value and the article's prodded or AfD'd instead?

I hadn't really thought about the systemic biases or charity issues, which would have an “effect” of a 16-fold change in “what should be done”. Since you are an admin, if you have the time, could you look at some of my other recent CSD's and tell me what you think about them as well?

Also, I'd like to know about executing CSD's as well, as I want to become an admin, and be a good one. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see how you can think of CSD as an "elegant sword", but that is a dangerous, and misleading analogy. CSD is a bypass, and the purpose of a bypass is not elegance. If you are a heart surgeon, you may think of a bypass as elegant, but it would be irresponsible if you used that view as a guide, and started making bypasses where they are not needed. This bypass is not needed for articles that are rare enough to merit individual discussion.

Re importance and verifiability, have you read WP:A7? I am really willing to help you, but please do your homework first, and RTFM.

There is another pitfall with regarding CSD as a weapon: It encourages a confrontational view, instead of WP:AGF. Actually, I'm scared by your analogy: My parents grew up in a country where people idolized weapons, and found dictatorship elegant, because it bypassed slow democratic processes. That is not the sort of ideology I want to see on Wikipedia.

I need to leave soon, so I'll keep the third approach for later. — Sebastian 06:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose scissors would be a better analogy. I have a penchant for purple prose, and sometimes don't pick the best metaphors. As an editor outside of Wikipedia, I've found that the biggest part of the job is deciding what stays and what goes. It's a part of the job that, when done correctly, improves the work. If done poorly, it ruins it. This is what I meant by 'elegance'. Editing well. And I didn't mean just CSD, I meant deletion on the whole. It's a tool that can be used to improve the encyclopædia.

I don't view AfD as a battle. I'm happy and feel fine about articles that survive AfD if I propose them, that's why I want to work with the ARS. I think that an article improving when brought up for AfD is a fine outcome. — Irbisgreif — continues after insertion below

Oops, I misread your post. So forget my reply. I like the scissors analogy! It also lends itself to a further analogy: Speedy deletion is like running with scissors: It's dangerous, but sometimes, you gotta do it. — Sebastian 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for reading A7, I went back and read it again, and here's where I'm not understanding. A7 says that there can't be any credible claim of importance for CSD to apply (It does, I admit, say that no sourcing on a claim is needed for credibility.). So, how can I tell where the community defines “credible” as beginning and ending? I'm pretty sure that's the problem I'm having. I, personally, considered the claim of being a national company with many branches “non-credible”, though of course, hindsight is 20/20 and I can see now why it was. (It being sourced even...) Irbisgreif (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your problem. I think you're making it more complicated than it is. CSD is specifically only for the easy cases. And it doesn't overrule WP:AGF. The wording in A7 doesn't mean that you have to put in any effort to investigate how many branches an organization has. It's only there to give you a handle when the article claims obviously uncredible statements. One important caveat, which is a major pitfall of the first approach: Even if an article meets a criterion, it does not mean that you have to tag it. The purpose of CSD is only to give you permission to do so. The reason for tagging an article should always be that you are certain without any doubt that (1) it does not deserve an article and (2) it can not be improved. If you're not certain, then you can (a) research and improve the article, or, if you don't have time or inclination for that: (b) Tag it with another template, such as {{prod}} or {{unreferenced}}, or, if you don't have time or inclination for that: (c) leave it alone. — Sebastian 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll be doing that, and saving CSD for vandalism. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're limiting yourself more than other people would. I guess that's what I'd do, too, if I patrolled new pages. But you don't have to limit yourself there: We have the other criteria for a reason, and it's OK to use them. One possible option I forgot to mention is: Userfy. That gives the user some breathing space, and it has sometimes resulted in nice articles. If an article is obviously about the new editor, I write something like this. — Sebastian 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a very easy way to do the review you're asking for. The vast majority of your nominations should have been correct already. None of them should need another set of eyes, because that's the whole point of CSD. And it's no fun to go through scores of vanity and spam pages just to find out that they all were indeed vanity and spam. By and large, you should get that feedback already by checking how many of your nominations have been declined. There is of course the risk that some of your nominations might have been deleted by an administrator by mistake or negligence. (It happens, I've seen it before.) If, in light of what we discussed above, you now feel that some of your deleted nominations might have been an error, I'd be happy to check into them. Since you can't see them, I'm pasting a list of your latest deleted nominations below:

Keith Rhoades (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Visual Lease (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Young Twan (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Annabella Winston (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G10). (TW))
Nickro (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW))
File:Dio band01.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))
Humans in popular culture (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW))
MyOTA (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Louise Edwards (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Break Neck films (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
Eric West (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
CIIWA (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Kimberly wise (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Jack saperstein (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Magnoballs (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
Sarfaraz Khan Marwat (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A3). (TW))
Daniel Garcia (Model,Songwriter) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
OSHO TEERTH (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
Magnoballs (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
Hong Kong Oratorio Society (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G12). (TW))
Kristian Ţhalai (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Kristian Ţhalai Pawl (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Peter thomas llewellyn (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G10). (TW))
Killerapp.com (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Resonance coaching (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
File:Moshehirchandarafat.JPG (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))
File:Illicit-web-holding-page.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))
File:Illicit-web-holding-page.jpg (This should not have been put for CSD yet.)
Derek Gleeson (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G12). (TW))
James Vaughan IV (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Hackscape (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A1). (TW))
Nelly Uvarova (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
KIT digital, Inc. (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Scott weintrob (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Jon Burgstone (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
CanvasJunkie.com (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Jake mcnamara (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
The One Whole Law Enforcement System Theory (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW))
Emma McLaughlan (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Tristan Da Voulas (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW))
We The People (band) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
Rev. Joy Mathew (was changed heavily... removed my own CSD tag)
Rev. Joy Mathew (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
2010 films (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G12). (TW))
User:W.A.J (Band) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
Dave Westlake (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G7). (TW))
User:AT&T CruiseCast (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
Vine 21 (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G7). (TW))
Vine 21 (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G2). (TW))

— Sebastian 06:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of those, the only one I can think that would need checking would be Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia. That was a regional psychiatric journal, and I'm guessing that it could have been fixed instead of deleted. Could you userfy it to my space and let me work on it? Irbisgreif (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and your nomination was fully appropriate. As Balloonman wrote, G11 is quite subjective, but in this case, the article was purely promotional by anyone's standard. I think Balloonman overlooks that G11 also specifies that "[the article] would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." That is a more objective criterion. Not checking that condition is a common mistake taggers make, but it clearly was met here.

If you insist, I can userfy the page for you, but I don't think it's worth your time; you would still have to rewrite the article from scratch.

I would like to add one thing, though, which matters to me, but which is not the majority opinion: I always try to welcome new users if there is a chance that they might become good contributors. Someone working for a scientific journal could potentially become a good editor here. So I would not have templated that user, but written them a personal message, along the lines of what I suggested at Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee#Personalize_your_message. It's too late for that now; the user probably will not log on with the same user name anymore, but I would be glad if you could keep it in mind next time. — Sebastian 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember exactly how it looked, so I'll trust you on that one. I think I'll try and couple "basic" responses with more friendly greetings in cases where the article looks to have been made in good faith. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coach[edit]

(Headline inserted after Irbisgreif's post of 15:14, 21 September.)

Oh, and one final thing, I have been searching for an admin coach, to help me learn how to be a better editor, the kind that can earn the mop. You're the first person who's been willing to sit down and explain to me what I'm doing wrong, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to coach me. I know you're not listed, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't sign up for that because I can't commit to being around consistently. I should be spending more time off wiki, and if I don't succeed in limiting my time here I may have to go cold turkey and take a wikibreak. But if you can live with that, then I would be happy to coach you as much as my time allows. I noticed that you have very similar pledges to mine ;-) , and I'm excited about that: I've always wanted these ideas to spread. I also would need a pledge coach to make sure I'm not deluding myself. Would you be willing to do that for me? — Sebastian 19:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you being around sporadically would force me to be patient and self-reliant in many cases, so I'd consider it a plus if anything.

As for the pledges, I copied them from you with small modifications, since I liked much of the sentiment. So it's only natural that they are similar.

I am unsure what you mean by a "pledge coach", but if it's something a non-admin can do, I should be able to do it, happily. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a general caveat about the admin coach relationship: The way I do things is not necessarily the most efficient way to do things at Wikipedia, and it's probably not the shortest route to adminship. A big portion of my motivation is that I see well intended people who are unnecessarily in pain, and I want to help them. That may incidentally be good for Wikipedia, if it results in encouraging a new editor to stay and do good things. But you don't have to do things the way I do. It might even backfire in your RfA: If e.g. you replied to a question about CSD in a way that people understood to mean that speedy deletion should only be used for vandalism, then you'd have a strong opposition against you. Let's be aware of this; please ask me whenever you're not clear if something is just my own way of doing things, or something you really have to do. — Sebastian 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I understand. I'll try and keep that in mind as we go forward. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should move our coaching related conversation to some new page in your or my userspace? BTW, why do you have no e-mail enabled? I might on occasion like the chance to give you some personal feedback. — Sebastian 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is User_talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching? As for e-mail, I thought I had it on. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LRC[edit]

For context for my question, check out Communist_genocide and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_genocide_(2nd_nomination). Now, I'm of the opinion that these articles are ridiculous. But I'm thinking that some of the people involved (on both debate sides) are starting to act with bad faith where this article is concerned. Tag Teaming RFC's, Moves, and AfD's, for example. How would you advise me to proceed? Irbisgreif (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the page has now been moved to Mass killings under Communist regimes, so it seems at least some compromise has been found. But such issues of course have deep roots; we will never be able to solve them perfectly, since there will always be people on either side who feel too strongly about such atrocities to accept any compromise. I haven't looked into this in depth, but it may need some ongoing mediation. If you would like to care for this issue in the months to come, and you feel you have a good chance to gain the trust of both sides, then I'd be happy to accompany you through it. If you find at least one editor from either side who is willing to compromise then you could start a conflict resolution WikiProject, like WP:SLR, WP:IPCOLL, and WP:IECOLL, all of which I've been involved in. — Sebastian 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm firmly on one 'side' of the debate. But working together with others would be good, esp. if mediation won't be needed. What would a good CR WikiProject name for something that would cover this be? Irbisgreif (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of a good name. How does WP:LRC (Left-Right Collaboration) sound? It could aim to bring people of great political difference together to work towards ensuring NPOV, and I /would/, in fact, like to do just that. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a great idea. The problem is that it might be too great: The left-right conflict is huge. But I don't want to discourage you; it's good to have great goals, and even a voyage of 10,000 miles starts with one step. You don't have to start with the big topic right away; you can just limit yourself to that article to begin with. (BTW, I didn't like your use of language like "ridiculous" on the deletion page. In that case, there are two choices: Either we have reliable sources for the concept, then we need an article about it. Or we dont, then we don't. Wikipedia has of course articles about topics that only a minority of people believe in; that's not a reason to delete it.) Some of the greatest people, such as John Muir, just jumped into big adventures over the garden fence. If I were in your place I would contact some of the people on the other side who showed occasional signs of ability to compromise and discuss the plan with them. And if there was anybody who was in the middle, include them, too, as well. I haven't researched the discussion, but it might be best to approach people by e-mail. That's at least what worked well for me when getting WP:SLR and WP:IPCOLL started. (I mentioned e-mail above; maybe you overlooked that.) — Sebastian 23:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see much reason to limit the target, after all, the conflict /is/ a left-right conflict. I'm generally one for going to the root of the problem. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the root of the problem ... that's tough in this case! I'm not even sure what the root is. But maybe that's already the wrong question. If Alexander the Great had asked himself that question, he never would have solved the Gordian Knot. It's certainly good to challenge yourself with tough tasks. I just hope you won't be too disappointed if it doesn't work out. So, do you have any plans or are you going to do it the John Muir way? — Sebastian 06:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's odd? I've always admired Muir. I have contacted some of the others about a WP devoted to pushing an NPOV on political articles, and I've gotten a few responses so far. If you'd like to help me with the technical parts of starting a WP, I'd be willing to jump right in. (And Alexander did get to the root of the problem, but he used the same genius level of out-of-the-box thinking that allowed him to defeat Persia). Irbisgreif (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The technical parts of starting a WProj aren't hard: Just copy and adjust the page (and ancillary pages or templates, such as the "This article is within the scope of ..." box) from a WProj you like. Then add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory and put the scope box on the first article you want to discuss. You may also want to invite others to join, but that can be a double edged sword: If you invite too many, then you might get just the same back-and forward as you already had on other talk pages. That's the mistake I made at WP:IECOLL. OTOH, some people might hold it against you if you don't invite them. Well, I guess you can solve that Gordian Knot somehow.

BTW, what do you think was the root of the problem for the Gordian Knot? (For me, that requires knot theory, but that's clearly inside the box.) — Sebastian 17:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Found the Muir quote: "'John Muir was a spirit so free that all he did to prepare for an expedition was to "throw some tea and bread into an old sack and jump over the back fence."' (from the back cover of "The Cruise of the Corwin".) — Sebastian 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the Gordian Knot's true "root" problem was one of Engeneering. Some things were holding themselves in place with tension, so Alexander relieved the tension. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, that would have worked for you, if you had been Alexander? Do you see a way to transfer that thinking to get to the root of the LRC problem? — Sebastian 18:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could kill anybody who doesn't agree ;) (A joke, of course.)

If we "cut away" the positions we've let ourselves become tied to in these various debates, and agree to report "just the facts", letting the reader do their own research and interpret things how they wish to, then things should go much easier. For that particular article, I think the problem would be that the main function it serves is to tie several communist crimes together so as to make the political ideology look at fault. What it /could/ do, if moved to a NPOV, would be to report on communism and genocide in general, looking at cases where communist governments opposed genocide (Yugoslavia or Vietnam in Cambodia, for example.) Then, the article would show the connections of the political ideology to both good and bad things and provide a clearer, more informative, picture. Stepping back and caring about facts lets me see that the article could be good. In fact, perhaps information on how genocides have occurred and been opposed under other governments could be made as well, creating an interesting set of articles about sociology of government and genocide. These articles could all be linked to from the genocide article itself. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. (I mean your last idea, of course, not the first, although I agree that that would be the correct analogy to Alex the Great.) Do you see that as a task for WP:LRC?

Short lauout question: I think the best layout for a page like this, where there are only two participants and a linear conversation, is to have one indented, and the other unindented. I remember that that was one of the standards we used in the old days, but I can't find it anymore, at least not on Wikipedia:Talk page. I have been writing it accordingly, but you wrote your replies always with "::". Since this page is here to help you, I don't want to impose my preference on you. Do you really prefer a slanted line, or did you just do that out of habit? — Sebastian 20:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was out of habit. I suppose you're right though, with long conversation between two people, it makes sense to switch back and forth rather than slanting the line. And yes, if created, WP:LRC could indeed do that. I'll make a page for LRC later. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSRC[edit]

Okay, check out WP:PSRC. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this feels like becoming a grandfather! I am excited about the extension of the family! It seems like you already got a second member who is from the other side of the spectrum.

Regarding Piotrus' point: Mediation was at the core of WP:SLR, but not in WP:IPCOLL. You don't have to formally add it to the project; just get a person with mediation experience, and who is (or has the potential to be) respected by both sides of the spectrum, to join as a member. Piotrus himself has been hanging around WP:MedCab; maybe he knows a good fit, or could even join himself.

I would also wish you'd take Piotrus' other comment more to heart. The project can not be about "keep[ing] politically charged articles NPOV" or "obeying the other policies". These policies are, after all, already part and parcel of Wikipedia, and the project would add no additional value to what we already have. Every POV pusher claims to fight for NPOV. (People just are that way, they always see the other as the POV pusher.) If you make that your raison d’être, then you will get members whose main motivation for joining is to show to others that they represent NPOV. It's like distributing free sheriff's stars. The project will go down the path Piotrus warns against. That's what happened to Wikiproject Neutral Coverage of the Sri Lanka Crisis, which contained some rotten apples (users who had been banned for POV warring), and ended up being so distrusted by other editors that it failed miserably. That's why we had to found Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Your project also has the word "reconciliation" in its name; that's a promise you need to keep. — Sebastian 15:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you have a point there. What's a good way to word that, then? So that the Reconciliation promise is kept? Irbisgreif (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to warn you from overemphasizing the rules. Other than that, I don't think the wording is that important. Reconciliation is a matter of spirit, not of rules. I know that you have that spirit; you only need to let it out and live it. That includes being open to people. The problem, of course, is that that's a double edged sword: sometimes other people's concerns can pull you away from your dreams. (Alexander's advisers probably didn't think of his solution and might have advised him to avoid the Gordian knot altogether.) I don't have that impression with Piotrus' post, though: It is 100% constructive and sensible. That's why I recommended reaching out to him. — Sebastian 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reply to Dc76. I know you added a smiley, but it still comes across as a bit bossy (not that I am free of that!), and I feel it misses the point. People are entitled to their political views. I assume that Fifelfoo's opposition also is partly caused by a perception that he needs to defend his right to have certain views. It is natural that people come to Wikipedia to make sure that their views are represented correctly. You can't prevent that by telling them what not to do. I think, a more realistic approach is to make sure that they contribute in a way that helps both themselves and Wikipedia. Reconciliation does not mean renunciation: It means accepting each other's differences, and bridging the gap by building mutual trust. — Sebastian 08:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not saying anything about this yet, but school has been hellish the past couple of weeks and I haven't been able to get involved as much as I'd like. The idea seems to be semi-floundering at the moment, partially from lack of attention. What do you think I can do to help the project survive? Irbisgreif (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it probably didn't help that this came so suddenly. When I was MedCom coordinator, there was one case where we had a very good mediator who even announced that they would be gone for a week, and people held it against em. But you're not mediating anything, and you're just a member of the project, like anyone else. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the discussion died down as soon as you left the room. What do people at PSRC expect from you? Were they only there because you asked them, or do they expect something from the project independently of you? It probably would be a good idea to ask on the project page. I would also clarify my availability there. One thing we did at SLR was we had the "What's new in WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation?" box, which lives in a page on its own, and it's written so that people can keep it on their user page. That was probably more necessary for us because there was too much going on then - it was necessary to get a digest. But it might also work in your case. — Sebastian 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]