User talk:David.Mestel

Arbitration precedents

Thanks for your work. The page is looking better, although it also looks like there is still more work to be done to cover past ArbComm decisions, For example, you could probably add the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute to both the 3RR and Consensus sections on the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions page. That case decided the addition to the 3RR policy that the 3RR policy wasn't an entitlement, and was also a particularly egregious case of an editor going against overwhelming consensus.

Question: Have their been any RFAR cases that involved edit summaries as one of the principles involved, or have edit summaries only been mentioned as part of other principles? ^Blank ^Verse 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen

Dear David, thank you very much for your outside view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen. Please find my comment here.--Mbuk 19:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

As an advocate, I generally offer advice on not breaching policies, and reminding the party to maintain a cool head in the dispute. An advocate, in my opinion, should aid in making a dispute civil and also standing up for a party if they cannot do it themselves. The best way to learn is to try it. Computerjoe 's talk 07:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the user. I generally receive requests via. email - and that's how I reply. If they request through UT, I'll reply via UT. Computerjoe 's talk 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my request for Advocacy

I appreciate your help. At this point the help is needed with Sarner, who is acting as a spokes person for mercer. We are trying mediation in the article on John Bowlby, but sarner is not willing to cooperate, compromise, or collaborate. I don't see how we can reach consensus when he is a zealot with a specific agenda to eliminate all references to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and related topics. His website and membership/leadership in ACT make this abundantly clear as do his comments on the Bowlby talk page. So, you help will be much appreciated.

Thank you. Dr. Art 11:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the main controversy is over the two wikilinks, to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay, and whether they should be listed in the See Also section. I suggest that the best thing to do in this situation is to propose a compromise, that the Theraplay link should go, since it does seem to have only marginal relevance to Bowlby, but the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy link should stay, since the article references Bowlby. Does that sound reasonable? --David.Mestel 06:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest is quite reasonable. However, it "appears" that sarner has some hidden agenda as an advocate for the fringe group, ACT, since he is not willing to put all his recommended changes out there for all to view, despite the fact that several other contributors have expressed a desire for that. I am a bit unsure about making a change now without knowing the full scope of his plans and agenda, which appears to be to eliminate any and all referernces to attachment-based treatment generally and to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, specifically. I'd appreciate your thoughts and recommendations...and your advocacy. Thanks so much. Dr. Art 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can e-mail me at AWeidman@Concentric.net Thanks 66.238.219.55 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it appropriate for me to comment here or not...if not, please let me know. I think your offered compromise is good. I am troubled by sarner's adament refusal to even think or consier it. Is there anyway to break his strangle hold on the Bowlby document? DPeterson 12:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your response to my request

Thanks and please continue this conversion at this location. I unlink the following 'dates' only: 'xx century', 'mmm' (month standing alone), 'yyyy' {year standing alone). By 'standing alone', I mean they are not part of the 'mmm dd' or 'mmm dd yyyy' combinations required for date formatting. As with all my other cleanup edits, I do not obtain permission ahead of time by posting notes to talk pages; nor do I post notes afterwords. I do not see any use for such links; to me, they are just unnecessary and wasteful clutter. An example is my work and the revert made to it is the 'Gregorio del Pilar' article. Thanks Hmains 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As with many disputes, I think this one needs a compromise. What I suggest is that you agree not to unlink stand-alone years and centuries without discussing on the talk page whether they provide additional context for that particular article, since WP:DATE does say that there is some dispute over whether these should be linked. We can then try to pursuade Rebecca to stop reverting your unlinking of stand-alone months, per WP:DATE. Does that sound reasonable to you? --David.Mestel 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the problem is with anything but standalone years, as there are bots (run by other editors) that are unlinking months and days with no apparant objection by Rebecca. I am not sure what I could put in the talk page other than my assertion that 'the linked years in the article provide no additional context'. Should I do this before I do my unlinking and wait xxx time (very impractical) or after. But, I am not sure that these comments will meet the personal standards set by Rebecca (read her original comments to me carefully). Of course, I am can try anything you suggest; I just do not want to be faced with more mass reversions which I expect can happen any time now or in the future that she finds something she does not like. I work in fear here. Thanks. Hmains 21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about you put a note on the talk page immediately before unlinking (except for stand-alone months), and then add the page to your watchlist, and be prepared to engage in discussion on the article's talk as to whether it adds any particular context to that article. We can then ask Rebecca not to revert without discussing it on the talk page first. How about that? --David.Mestel 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds practical and reasonable. I can test it when you say so. Thanks Hmains 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll go and talk to Rebecca, to get her to agree. --David.Mestel 05:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't see the difference. He would still be doing exactly the same thing - hitting random page, going to an article he's never been to before, and killing all the date links on sight, only he'd be leaving a pointless template comment on the talk page. It's exactly the same thing, if slightly slower. Rebecca 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing removing standalone links to days or months at all, although they strike me as a not very useful way of spending one's time. WP:DATE does note that one should try to come to a consensus on year issues, and I'm happy to do this. However, letting someone spend all their time killing random date links on sight in the exact same way (or very close to it) as did the guy who precipitated the whole original dispute is, IMHO, not a compromise. Rebecca 06:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's already stated above that he initially plans to do no more than whack a template on the talk page, which means that I'd have to individually dispute each and every case (which by his usual standards may be up to 40 or 50 a day). That is simply a waste of my time and his - time which would be better spent doing something that actually helps the encyclopedia (writing articles in my case, and doing some of his many actually-useful chores in Hmains' case).

In any case, there is a fundamental distinction to be made here. If someone stumbles across a link or three they think is useless, I really couldn't care less. When someone dedicates all their time on Wikipedia to expunging each and every one they come across, in the exact same way as the behaviour that caused the policy to be tightened only a couple of months ago, I'm not inclined to be very sympathetic. Rebecca 06:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this issue has been discussed at length precisely because of a couple of people doing what Hmains has been doing. After many thousands of words, a basic consensus emerged that mass linking and mass delinking was unhelpful, the policy was amended so as not to encourage either side, and everyone else who was doing it stopped. For a month or so now, we've had absolutely no conflict on the issue. If Hmains wants to have the policy re-amended to support his edits, then he's welcome to do that, but there is neither consensus support nor grounds in policy for shooting all date links on sight. Rebecca 06:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the last message. It is okay to remove date links sometimes. If you come across one and you don't think it is relevant, remove it, and I'll have no problem with that. This much is a matter of a judgement call, and respects those of us who do find date links useful. What I do have a problem with - and what the policy was changed to prevent - is people who dedicate all their energies to expunging every date link they come across from the encyclopedia, when there is absolutely no consensus that this is acceptable. Every single person who was doing that has now ceased to do so, and I expect no less of Hmains. Rebecca 06:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the judgement? His edit history reveals a rapid-fire succession of edits to random articles (one every two or three minutes) which killed any date links in those articles. Rebecca 16:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the rollback function is not just for simple vandalism. It is for reverting vandalism and other obvious reversions where the reason for making the revert is immediately obvious to all concerned. In this particular case, the user concerned is using an automated script to make the edits, and I see no good reason for me to waste several hours when the reason for my reverts is crystal clear to all involved. Furthermore, it is impossible to discuss individual changes when a) they number in the hundreds on any given day, and b) the user concerned repeatedly (and I stress repeatedly) refuses to discuss the matter with anyone at all. Rebecca 08:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then that page is out of step with the common understanding of rollback. This is particularly so in the light of freely available third-party tools which make rollback-type abilities available to anyone. There is absolutely no good reason why I should have to take four hours to revert automated edits when the reason for my reversions is bleedingly obvious to all involved. Rebecca 15:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a poll earlier in the year that, from memory, couldn't even reach majority support for that interpretation, although with the myriad growth of policy pages I've got no idea where I'd find it. In any case, however, occasional attempts to enforce the written policy there have met with definite resistance, and to my knowledge no action has ever been taken against anyone for making rollback edits along these lines. This is somewhat understandable when one considers that a) they could now be made by anyone with a download, b) it would be a complete waste of many hours of my time that could be spent helping the encyclopedia, and c) would achieve absolutely nothing. Can you think of anything that wasting four hours of my time manually reverting two hundred automated edits instead of doing the same in fifteen minutes would achieve? Rebecca 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mestel: what is the current status of my request. Thanks Hmains 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the patronising, David. I simply cite long-standing practice, and I care not enough to actually find some form of written basis for this. I have justified my rollbacks with reference to logic, reason, and common practice, and you have not given me one good reason why it benefits the project for me to do this manually, instead of reverting the edits in the same way they were made in the first place. Rebecca

Frankly, I've had enough of this wikilawyering. I have explained time and time again why I have acted the way I have, and you have not once given one single reason why my actions were not entirely acceptable in the circumstances. If you have any further qualms about this, rather than harassing me with pointless wikilawyering, I suggest that you pursue the set dispute resolution process, which I will vigorously contest. Rebecca 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, yes. One of the big problems with the advocate process on Wikipedia is that it occasionally drags up a relative newbie who simply does not understand how Wikipedia works, and then proceeds under the misunderstanding that policy is equivalent to a real-world law. In any given situation on Wikipedia, common sense will trump policy nearly every time. I explained why I did what I did, and I invited you to respond with how this was unreasonable in the circumstances, something which, despite repeated prompting, you have chosen not to do. Instead, you have engaged in cries of "but the policy! but the policy!". This is the sort of conduct which, frankly, is not only unhelpful, but is what gets the AMA such a downright bad name. Rebecca 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, however, have an advantage. He makes automated edits. I make automated reversions. This is entirely reasonable. Rebecca 15:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had so much glanced at his contributions, you would have noticed that he uses the AutoWikiBrowser to automate his edits. This is why he is able to make so many edits so fast. Rebecca 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. He uses a special script for date linking only, which is visible at User:Hmains/monobook.js. Are you happy now? Rebecca 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings returned

Hi David, thanks for the note. I must confess some ignorance at how these relationships work, but if you say I'm a second cousin once removed I will happily believe you! I don't think that I've seen either Leon or Jonathon for many years, although I know my mother has been in correspondence with Leon regarding a rather extensive family tree that she's been compiling (as extensive as it's possible to be when written records don't go back much beyond four or five generations). Anyway, good to catch up and, as an editor, I agree with your support for the serial comma (or Oxford comma, as I prefer to call it, of course). [[User talk:Brodders|Talk to me]] 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even by my standards, 25 cats does seem rather excessive. Just having six of them makes our house feel like cat city, so I can only imagine what 25 moggies must do to a household! I've always maintained that a house is not a home unless there's a cat present, so I presume that Leo's house feels exceedingly homely... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brodders (talk • contribs) .

Bae Yong Joon

Oh, don't say that. All the better, isn't it? Meditating is job full of headaches, and sometimes it can drag on for a very long time. With less edit spats, less meditating is needed and you can get involved more actively in real life. This is better, for me.

For now, after several stern warnings, I'm very sure that User:Fabshelly is aware of the consequences of violating wikipedia's rules, which he is aware. However, who knows? Maybe he might come back sometime later, or a supporter of Koh Gyudhae might do similar things as with Fabshelly. We, along with all other wikipedians will keep a lookout on the page now and then in the meantime. Cheers! Mr Tan 15:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowlby Page

David, I hope you will put in place your proposed solution/compromise and put and end to the fruitless argument and discussion. It is obvious that there is a broad consensus for leaving the page as is or putting into effect your solution. Thanks for taking this on. SamDavidson 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]