User talk:David.Mestel/Archive 06

Signpost draft - T.R.O.L.L.

David: I happened to see the draft of this week's Signpost in your userspace. I hope it's okay if I give you a couple of comments. First, in the Konstable case, I wouldn't say that Konstable left the project but then returned with an alternate account. What actually happened was that he set up the alternative account to experiment with something (though that's probably more detail than you need).

Also in the Siobhan case, you probably don't want to be predicting what outcome is "likely" in the case, as the situation is a bit fluid, particularly as concerns MONGO. I think it should be enough to say that remedies concerning Siobhan and MONGO have been proposed.

I hope these comments are helpful, and please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 50	11 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed	Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available	Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted	WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking for help with a dispute on Anti-Cult Movements

David, I figure you're busy or away from WP at the moment. So I'll go ahead and put the below on the Advocates queue instead of trying to approach someone directly (BTW I'm sorry if that was the wrong thing to do, but I got impression from the AMA page that it was ok.)Tanaats 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi David,

Are you still open for business as an Advocate? If so...

I'm having quite a dispute on Anti-Cult Movement. There are two armed camps in the discussion of "cults": the "cult critics" such as the late Margaret Singer, and the proponents of the concept of New Religious Movements (NRM) such as Eileen Barker. The "cult critics" support the theory that there are such things as "cults" of a destructive nature that use unethical, deceptive, and powerful psychological techniques to recruit and retain members. The advocates of the theory of NRMs take these positions (among others):

• There is no such things as a "cult of a destructive nature". Instead what we have are "new religious movements" that, while they may be seen as very eccentric by the average person, should be given respect out of a sense of "religious freedom". For example, we shouldn't take a position on whether an NRM is "good" or "bad".

• There are no such things as the "psychological techniques" posited by the cult critics. People join NRMs freely and without undue influence.

• The teachings and activities of the "cult critics" such as Steven Hassan are destructive to these NRMs (for example they can ruin the reputations of an NRM) and are therefore morally wrong.

• There is unquestionably such a thing as an "Anti-Cult Movement" (ACM) in which "[[anti-cultists|anti-cultist] organizations band together in an organized opposition to what they see as these hypothetical but actually non-existent "cults".

The arguments of the "cult critics" are quite complex, and the arguments of the those arguing the NRM position is also quite complex so the list above is only a sample. However, the NRM position that my little dispute is about is the last one listed above, i.e. that there is unquestionaly an ACM.

Ok...the cult critics take these positions in reponse to the NRM assertions about an ACM...

• They assert that there is in fact no such thing as an ACM (see "Don’t lump individuals or groups together" here.

• They point out that while NRM advocates strongly assert that there is unquestionably such a thing as an ACM, there have been absolutely no studies demonstrating that this assertion is true! (See the second paragraph at Anti-Cult Movement.

Ok, finally here is a description of the dispute at Anti-Cult Movements:

The very first sentence at "Anti-Cult Movement" states that "The anti-cult movement, sometimes abbreviated as "ACM", opposes cults and new religious movements that it sees as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals." My position in the dispute is that this is very strongly POV because it presents the existence of an ACM as a implied "fact" rather than as a "theory" or "assertion".

My proposal is that the opening sentence should be reworded to something like ""Anti-Cult Movement", sometimes abbreviated "ACM", is a term used by some scholars to refer to what they state is an organized opposition to cults and new religious movements that it sees as harmful or dangerous for society and individuals."

So all I want to do is to introduce language so that the opening sentence does not have POV that implies to the reader that the existence of an ACM is a fact. I also want to change other language in the article that states or implies that the existence of an ACM is a fact. For example, in the Bibliography the second subsection is now titled "By protagonists or organizations considered part of the ACM from an activist point of view." I strongly feel that the formulation "the ACM" is more of the same POV, and that the heading should be changed to say something like "By protagonists or organizations labeled as being part of an ACM". There are probably other such statements in the article that I would object to in a similar way, but after I made my edits I got rv'd and stopped looking for them.

The dispute over this is rather lengthy, and is one the Anti-Cult Movement Talk page in the section titled "Isn't the opening sentence POV?". A user named "Jossi" (sorry but I don't know how to create a wikilink to a user page) is the one who rv'd my edits. Although I'm rather new to Wikipedia, I knew better than to get into an edit war, so I opened a discussion on the Talk page that although very lengthy eventually reached solid impasse.

I feel that I have made an extensive effort to discuss the matter with Jossi. Fossa sided with Jossi in the discussion but ended up saying that I could make the edits. However when I asked Jossi if he/she also agreed that I could make the edits I got no response.

So I would like to take this through dispute resolution. Can you please help me to do this the right way?

BTW, I am new to Wikipedia and therefore might not have a high standing in the Wikipedia community. However editors Smeelgova and Tilman seem quite experienced and would argue in favor of my point.

Thanks! Tanaats 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

An update: Tilman just made an edit to the opening sentence along the lines I suggest above. I don't know what Jossi is going to do, we'll see. Tanaats 22:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 51	18 December 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen	Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss"	News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-18/Arbitration report

I'm concerned by the way you represented my position at the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate case. The way you write the piece it looks like three people have lined up against Guardian Z. Actually I don't see one party as a primary instigator and consider Skinny McGee to have violated roughly an equal share of policies. If both administrators had actually agreed as you describe then the situation probably would have been resolved on the community level instead of going into arbitration. Would you please change the description? Otherwise I may need to append my evidence statement at the case. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 52	26 December 2006	About the Signpost

Seven arbitrators chosen	Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hello

I just thought I'd say hi, since we haven't talked for a while... I've become a little less involved in advocacy since we last spoke (pressures of life, etc.), but I've started writing the Report on Lengthy Litigation for the Signpost, which is quite fun, although I don't think I've quite become a bona fide hack just yet. I've tried to become less of a process wonk, although I think I'll never truly leave that part of me behind, and I'm not entirely sure that I want to - WP:PI, after all. By the way, I must say that I admire your Chutzpah wrt Jimbo's edit... David Mestel^(Talk) 17:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello there David, it's nice to hear from you again. I regret that unfortunately that thing called "real life" has rather got in the way of me having much involvement with Wikipedia lately, and as a consequence I have dropped off the map somewhat. I'm glad to hear that you're moving away from the semantic aspects of Wikipedia, as I tend to feel that when people engage in pseudo-legal debate over process nobody really wins - neither the person making the arguments, nor those who disagree with them - and I think you will probably have a much better Wikipedia editing experience if you adopt the "fuzzy" approach to policy versus the "by the book" modus operandi. Of course, some people have a penchant (and often talent) for semantics relating to regulations, and so it is perfectly fine that you still have some elements of the so-called "process wonk" approach; indeed, in some cases, process wonks can actually be very useful, when applied in small doses, as they can often identify loopholes and flaws inside written policy that may be subject to attempts of malefactory exploitation by some users (saving everyone headaches).

I am highly pleased that you have found an additional line of Wikipedia work via the Signpost, which I think is a useful (and under-used) mechanism within Wikipedia for summarising events that have occurred within the editing environment; I would hope, however, that you continue advocating and/or mediating, as despite your predilection for a little rules-lawyering from time to time you do have the important fundamentals of success in that area, and with continued experience you will become exponentially better at both.

Regarding Jimbo's edit - thank you. I am particularly irritated by cases where Foundation staff "muscle in" on behalf of what were problem users at some point, especially where no direct detriment is occurring to the community as a whole requring the remedial action and the discussion in question doesn't violate Wikipedia civility maxims. It tends to "chill" the discussion environment, and creates an incomplete record - forming a black hole, perhaps, in Wikipedia's history, which applies to a greater extent to "oversight" privileges.

In addition, I think it is one thing to remove offending revisions from public articles and talk pages, but where no copyright violations, personal attacks, civility infractions etc. are made on a user's private talk page, it is rather indefencible to remove the message merely to cater to the vanity of a problematic user. It is discourteous in the extreme, and highly irritating. I did not reverse his action, as "wheel warring" is intrinsically bad also, but merely expressed my displeasure and linked to the diff. I wish more people would take a position of similar non-violent resistance when it comes to these issues of removal of perfectly valid discourse, especially since people would be baying for my blood if I personally did something similar to Jimbo's edit.

I do hope you find continued success in Wikipedia, and give you my very best wishes for the forthcoming 2007. If there is any way I can help you out at all, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mail

Please check your e-mail, at your convenience. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost minor question

I just made a minor change to the arbitration report on signpost in the Starwood section. Mattisse is a she, not a he. Just a quick grammatical question though.

Mattisse confirms that she has been harassed by Hanuman Das, Ekajati and 999, but that she has no issue of harassment with Rosencomet himself.

Does the himself refer to Mattisse or Rosencomet in this case? I was unsure of whether to change that as well or not. Thanks, Metros232 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Following up on my e-mail, I don't think allegations of harassment that haven't been adjudicated by the committee should be reported in detail in any event. It should be sufficient to say there is a dispute between User:X and User:Y regarding editing of article Z. Newyorkbrad 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

R.O.L.L.

Will do. Ral315 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re : Esperanza MfD

Indeed, this is one component that hasn't change since the era of Votes for Deletion - I can only say that the only thing editors are falling back on is the appeals process on deletion review at the moment, which at least does work most of the time. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• You may wish to first start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion and propose what possible changes should be made. It is a difficult process that is likely to meet resistance (many of my policy digests have previously fallen through), but it is definitely worth a try. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dismissed for lack of evidence

There has been at least one that I know of: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy. Ral315 (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

From skimming old cases, there were a couple of others in 2004 ... which of course is ancient history in Wiki-time, of course. :) Newyorkbrad 13:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

You say I am canvassing, however, since I am encouraging a neutral point of view and all of wikipedia's policies isn't it ok for me to try and promote the improvement of an article? Scifiintel 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's only a proposed guideline, and not a guideline yet, and so far no one I've posted to has complained and I've only got thankful comments. The people I'm posting to seem generally open to an idea of a good article to edit such as Jesus and would probably like to know that it is the first item that comes up when you search for Jesus. Scifiintel 18:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What?

What did I do? What are you talking about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.54.55.92 (talk • contribs).

David Mestel^(Talk) 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

tenacity of a humble editor

I don't think "tenacity" means what you seem to think it means ;-). 67.117.130.181 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

audacity

I wouldn't say it was audacious. Maybe you wanted "temerity" but even that might be a bit much. 67.117.130.181 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Swapitshop

Per the latest clarified WP:CSD#G4 guidelines, an article can now only be speedied as a repost if it was deleted per an AFD (or CFD, MFD, etc.) discussion. Otherwise, the appropriate speedy criterion should just be re-used (in this case {{db-web}} and {{db-spam}}). Fan-1967 18:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just noticed that. Then I tried to revert myself, but not noticing your change I just clicked on the second entry in the history, and reverted to it, accidentally reverting you. I've fixed it now. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Belated thanks for the barnstar, and a question: Are you interested in applying for adminship? Ral315 (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You've got enough edits, I think, to pacify those with editcountitis, you've done work with AMA and the Signpost, as well as vandal-reversion, you've got some work at WP:AIV, and I can't see any problems with incivility, etc. If you want me to nominate you, I'll do so after I get back from work. Ral315 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

E-mail sent, but the gist of it is, I think you'll do well, and I've nominated you here. Ral315 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Replying to opposes

Hey, just a quick note: You should know that replying to oppose !votes in your RFA is generally frowned upon; it's seen as combative, especially if you reply to a lot of them. Just letting you know in case you didn't. Peace, delldot | talk 17:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA comments

Hi. I appreciate your response to my concerns, and I do believe your good faith in making those articles to show that you take the concerns seriously. However, when it comes to concerns such as main-space contributions, creating 2 new articles on the same day as the concerns were brought up is never going to be enough to convince people, since people look for editing patterns. In addition, adding them to your answers is going to seem like a quick-fix attempt to most other editors, and is not giving yourself credit for where your real contributions lie with respect to the question ("What are you most proud of..."), since those 2 edits amount to only 0.1% of your contributions here over the last year. Also, my concern as to the Save Page button is not as much to the fact that that is the way you edit, but more that it artificially inflates your real contributions (there seem to be many that were within only a few minutes, and while computer crashing can be a concern when editing for over an hour, I'd think you could save the page less often than 3 minutes or so and still be safe. Then again, I don't know what your computer is like! :-) ) -- Renesis (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, from reviewing your contributions, I just don't think you are ready, but it doesn't mean I think you are doing a bad job. On the plus side, you seem to be doing a great job with the sign post, and I'm sure your knowledge of the applicable policies is excellent! -- Renesis (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFA Thanks

I appreciate your post to my talk page regarding my comments at your RFA - that's an extremely noble thing to do considering I was probably not as polite as I should have been. While I find it extremely hard to know just what experience is indicative of a good candidate for admin, one thing I have always looked for is an edit history that reflects a wide range of experience (even though the candidate may be focused strongly in one area). I think with just a bit more time you'll gain this experience, and given your track record in the work you have done so far, I'm confident I will support you in the future. Thanks again for your polite comments and willingness to consider critique — I think that is one of the best traits a good editor/admin can have. — Renesis (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

22 January 2007 Arbcomm report

• While checking the Signpost newsroom, I ran across what appeared to be an inadvertent duplicate in the Arbcomm report - here's the diff in case I missed something....[1]. -- MarcoTolo 00:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 4	22 January 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag	WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Talk page template, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Report

That's fine. Normally I won't add credit for minor edits, but since I was involved in a minor way with the Nathanrdotcom situation in August, I wanted to make sure it was known that anything that might reflect an opinion toward him there, one way or another, was entirely my own. Ral315 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Signpost

Please clarify your summary of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

"According to Durova, Ilena is the Rosenthal in that case, and she alleges that Fyslee has a close relationship with Barrett."

Actually my evidence cites Ilena's own statement that she is the Rosenthal of that case. The pronoun she is ambiguous and problematic: Ilena asserts that Fyslee and Barrett are close associates; I'm female also so it's unclear which of us is being attributed. Fyslee has called himself a former associate of Barrett. I presented those claims to the committee and haven't done an independent investigation to determine how true they are. Durova^Charge! 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered this here and believe you should be very careful about how you use the word "associate" here. It can be understood in several ways, often implying a work colleague, partner, employee, boss, etc., none of which is true in this case.

I am rather shocked to discover that this matter has been publicly mentioned in The Signpost, which I never read, without a requirement that both myself and Ilena approve of the text before its publication (IOW each other's statements). Such a procedure could help to avoid a repetition of possible (I'm speaking of matters of priniciple here) misrepresentations, defamations, insults, etc. in The Signpost. These are matters of an unsettled RfArb, and I would think such a matter should not be publicized before it is finished. Please be more careful in the future. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee (First law) 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I replied to your concern on My RfA. If you don't want to change your vote for some reason, I can live with that. But, on a personal level, I do want you to know that you misunderstood the meaning of that entry. I'm not that sort of person. Kafziel ^Talk 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)