User talk:Serialjoepsycho/Archive 21

Please comment on Talk:Americans for Prosperity
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Americans for Prosperity. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of Coin
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Atsme 📞📧 02:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

question at arbcom
I am out of space, so I will reply here. You asked what I was responding to. You wrote " With the current showing it's hard to believe that the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. As DGG wrote, Atsme reverted attempts to WP:FIXIT. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My comments are quite fair. It doesn't matter that they tried to fix it. That's irrelevant to what I have said. The GAR should not have been opened at that time by the person who opened it and with the participation of those who joined. When someone you have issues with opens a COIN against you, then the participants of that COIN (who you have also have issues with) descend on an article (where there is a false accusation of a COI), then list it for a GAR... This is what happened. When we fail to avoid the appearance of impropriety we cause unnecessary drama. The reason GAR guidelines say to avoid listing during a dispute is because that. It doesn't encourage Atsme to work with you to fix the article, It encourages Atsme to be pissed off because it looks like you are out to get her.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear you - I don't fully agree (I do in part) but I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You also disagreed that your piss poor coin case was piss poor.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the COIN case was very clear with regard to Earthwave - there is no question about it.  The Racz thing was iffy as I said from the get-go.  I still wish Atsme would have responded simply and directly - I deal with loads of conflicted editors and almost all of the interactions are not dramatic.  I really don't understand where you coming from altogether; I do hear you about the inflammatory nature of discussing COI and then dealing with content - it is something I generally avoid like the plague, exactly for that reason.  About the Racz content, the only thing I have said on the Talk page, is  here where I offered to contribute content on his company.  The GAR was opened only after it became clear that Atsme wouldn't allow improvements (which is where your comment was unfair - people did try to FIXIT) and I did comment on the GAR - but by things were already far gone and it didn't matter.  Would it have been better if others hadn't tried to improve the Racz article right after the COIN case?  Probably.  That doesn't excuse Atsme freaking out.  We are all responsible to keep cool here. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But let me really ask you -- and I am really asking and listening. Why do you think the COIN case was piss poor?  I would like to understand. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no reasonable ground to even consider much less suggest that Atsme has a conflict of interest with regards to Racz. The evidence you use if of a very low standard. Another issue is that a COIN was actually opened. Let me point out the following from COIN, "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." You can technically suggest that this happened in this case. There was drama in 2011 and the links were removed. In 2014 it was reinserted. Yes technically the standard has been met. Still there's a significant amount of time that has passed. You really haven't reasonably met that standard, only technically.

Also while there is a COI, there is only a minor COI. This COI does not rise to a level where a connected contributor tag should have been posted on the discussed pages. This minor COI doesn't actually even matter unless the external links were in violation of the external link policy or is the sources violated reliable sourcing policy. It would be better to determine that by taking it either to ELN or RSN. It would only be necessary to open a COIN if there was a consensus against the use of those and she reinserted them or if she added those sources to an article in the future.

An old joke is, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." Suggesting of course that someone is out to get you. Atsme did freak out but with the numerous appearances of impropriety on the part of multiple people. It is excusable. Again I agree with most of the points raised by Doc James. Still, Now or later Atsme will have to take care of this if she wants the article to remain GA.

In the future Atsme should take more care when posting links that she's associated with. In the future you should be more careful when operating at COIN. In The future Doc James should be more careful when opening a GAR.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. One thing at a time.  Process first as I agree that is super important.   I described in the COIN posting,  that I posted first on her page to try to talk with her.  This is what I always do.  Did you not see that? Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw it. You want a commendation? So you talked to Atsme on her page. The rest of that standard is missing. Look if you're looking to defend yourself go ahead but go take it to someone else. I'm not actually or remotely interested.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I've re-read what you wrote a few times, and I get what you are saying and I've struck my initial response as that was not appropriate.  Sorry about that and thanks for taking the time to explain Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Advice
Hi, SJP - excuse my imposition but I was hoping for some advice. What do you think would be the best way for me to go about adding something to the essay WP:AVDUCK? One of the original opposers has assumed a WP:OWN posture and is preventing me from adding what I believe would be a useful addition. I'm not going to edit war rather I'd prefer to initiate an RfC but not on the essay's TP because the addition will need input from a wider ranging perspective. Do you think Village Pump would be a viable option? Atsme 📞📧 10:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your best bet at the moment would be to attempt to discuss it and negotiate. Right now if you took it to ANI (This your primary option) you would either accomplish nothing or get a boomerang. Don't get pissed off and this is not about winning. What do you want? What are their issues with it? Have you gave those issues due consideration? Can you address those issues? After that if it's not in the essay and you still feel it should be in the essay and it still isn't seek further comment thru something such as an RFC. Play a straight card game. House rules. The house is wikipedia and the house always wins. Consensus is the rule.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't want to post an RFC on the village pump. Post it on the talk page. Neutrally advertise it on the village pump. You could also advertise at any relevant noticeboard and wikiproject. You could also advertise on any relevant related article or policy. Again make sure your advertisement is neutral. Do not attempt to sway anyone with your advertisement. If you want to try to sway them you will be able to do so if they join the RFC. Take specific note of the canvassing policy thru out any of this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As a show of GF and in an attempt to avoid potential conflict that the RfC was not presented neutrally, would you be so kind as to present it or direct me to someone who would?  The passage I want included in the RfC (question being whether it is or isn't acceptable for inclusion) is available for copy/paste in the edit history.  At this point in time, I am weary of groundless accusations and would rather avoid the possibility of more but I also believe it is an important passage to add to that essay, not because of anything involving me but in other areas where the problems exist. I can't think of any other editor more neutral than you despite our past interactions and I have given the latter much thought and self-analysis over the past year. Atsme  📞📧 22:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just ask a question. RFC's start with a question. Don't try to sway anyone with the question. Be simple and concise. "Should ect be in this essay?" You get to take part in the RFC so you can and the why later. When advertising you don't even have to ask a question. Just do something along the lines of the advertisements the feedback request service is using. "I'm seeking participation in a RFC at essay name here." For the title post something like "Please comment on essay name here." Keep it to neutral locations like the village pump and obviously related aikiprojects. I think there's a wikiproject essay. You might also go to obviously related pages like the any policy on advocacy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greek government-debt crisis
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek government-debt crisis. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cuban Thaw
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cuban Thaw. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of kings of Persia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of kings of Persia. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC) == Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Remodeling of major party candidate areas ==

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Remodeling of major party candidate areas. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Obergefell v. Hodges. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)