User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 46

Removed your name from active hosts list for now
Yo Steven!

Just writing to let you know that I've removed your name from the list of active Teahouse hosts, because it looks like you haven't participated much since the Teahouse opened. This wasn't supposed to be some passive-aggressive swipe at you; we're really just trying to make sure the list of hosts (and the host profiles that new users see) reflects people who are actively working the Q&A board, inviting new users, etc. This is so new users who are browsing through the host list feel confident that the people the see there are available and engaged. Anyway, we'd still love to have you around and value your contribution, so feel free to come by and add yourself back in when/if you want to take part. Any questions, you know where to find me! Cheers, - J-Mo  Talk to Me   Email Me  21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Jonathan. Been really busy as of late (as you would know) and haven't been on wiki much lately. Hopefully I will be freer soon, and can help out again. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 00:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You missed some pretty "great" wikidrama. :P Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Steven. As you asked me to let you know, I have just transcluded my RfA. Thanks for your nomination. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph about copyright
Hi Steve, I've written a paragraph about the copyright lesson, let me know if this is sufficient. I've also uploaded some work for the wikimarkup assignment a while back, could you look at that too? Thanks!, Mythio (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"When it comes to wikipedia, copyright is a major issue. Because of the many different licenses and the public nature of a wiki, it is important to adhere to copyrights (most notably of images). Most of the text and images on wikipedia are used under a license that allows its free distribution. However, this is not the case for all material. An especially tricky part is making sure that uploaded images that are not owned by the uploader, meet the fair use criteria. This fair use rationale allows the use of images outside of their normal copyright based on a fair use claim. In short, the policies wikipedia has concerning copyright, essentially deal with the use of non-free content on the free wikipedia. Violating these policies repeatedly can get you blocked. On a personal note, I have learned to stay away from things involving copyright for the time being. Seems to be a very complex issue ;-) "


 * Odd, I was typing up a reply to this last night - I must never have saved it. Your paragraph here is good. When in doubt with things like copyright - especially when you're new, ask others for assistance. It doesn't hurt to be sure. Your WikiMarkup sandbox looks good. Maybe it's time to move on to some content lessons. Maybe check out the Article repair lesson? Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 20:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan! Sorry my work on the lessons (and wiki) has been a bit sluggish last few weeks. I'm reading up on wiki discussions mostly and am trying to learn some more about the different areas around here. On top of that my RL exams for this semester are next week, so time is being sucked away from me :-) Mythio (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Survey
The compulsory question on highest level of education goes from undergraduate to masters, but does not have a space for anything in between. I have a Postgraduate Certificate in Education which is midway between the two. I can either under or over qualify myself, or I can chose to "prefer not to say", but I can neither skip the question, nor write in a manual answer in an "other" box.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the same "buckets" that was used in the new page patrol survey and the editor survey, but have added an other option. Thanks for pointing it out. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 13:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Survey
If you use the back button on your survey, it won't let you proceed anymore, it says that there are required fields missing. Gigs (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure, couldn't create that error. Check that all the fields with red asterisks are filled in. If that doesnt work you could do it from scratch. It's done through Google Forns but I haven't seen any errors like that. Give it another go maybe. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 13:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Response on my talk. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Cheers. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 22:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also encountered the problem that I couldn't leave fields blank. But when I saw the lists of checkoff items, I realized that the terminology of dispute resolution is mixed up.


 * WP:RFAR announces that arbitration is "the last step of dispute resolution". If so, what are the lesser steps? Suppose that WP:WQA is considered a step of dispute resolution, and you believe that your issue has not been adequately handled. Where do you go from there? Is there a route of escalation for dispute resolution forums?  Any hierarchy that leaves out WP:ANI will be puzzling to people who actually deal with disputes every day. We should not be shocked that people who are in a dispute will randomly pick a lot of different forums when we don't give specific guidance on what to do. (Of course, any guidance may not be followed, but that is a different problem). EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought RFC/U would between WQA and RFAR. It might be too late to add ANI as an option (but it would be encompassed in the Other noticeboards option). I'll tweak it a bit to add that info in. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Decided to add AN/ANI as an option, because it's sometimes used for DR. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 23:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Instead of filling in the survey
I feel that what I have to say doesn't really fit into the forms, so I am putting it here instead. Feel free to ignore it if it's not usable for you in this form. I was going to keep the following thoughts back for about a year to give them time to ripen, but here is a preliminary version.

In my 4 years as a volunteer for Wikipedia I spent a lot of energy on resolving disputes simply because I felt I was quite effective in that role and it's very satisfactory when a hot conflict turns into a consensus and the opposing factions are forged into a team. However, in my most recent experience with dispute resolution, Arbcom scratched my back with a dagger: "reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility". At that point I decided that I am wasting my time here, as the project's highest body is evidently not interested in supporting dedicated and highly qualified volunteers who are not 100% perfect 100% of the time (keep in mind that everything is recorded here), perfection being assessed mostly by people living in an alien (to me) culture which is prone to excesses such as forbidden words on TV, arresting children for practically no reason, unreasonably wide interpretations of free speech etc. Hans Adler 16:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Hans. This sort of in-depth info is useful, and was something I was hoping to get from users after the survey has run its course. I'll email this to myself so I keep it for future reference. Thanks heaps. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to be completing the survey, because I can't do so without practically identifying myself. Please rethink the question about what permissions ("rights") people hold, or limit it (none/autoconfirmed/administrator). There is not a statistically significant number of bureaucrats, oversighters, checkusers or stewards who regularly participate in Wikipedia to justify their results being analysed directly by permission level; each group has fewer than 50 members, the groups overlap significantly, and I cannot think of a situation on this project where those permissions were relevant to dispute resolution processes. Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. I'll scratch those from the survey. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 00:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 01:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steven. I remember going around with Okeyes about this for his survey, which was in turn based on a WMF survey where I also couldn't get a reasonable explanation from the researcher either. You're the first one to fix the survey.  Risker (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, demographics info in my survey is important, but having honest opinions about dispute resolution is more important. The more responses, the more accurate the results are. Thanks again. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 01:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse! You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
 * First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
 * Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
 * Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
 * Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
 * Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

Survey
Hi, the DR survey requires demographic information. If/when it does not require it I can try, but not now. My apologies. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's alright. The demographic information is pretty important, as it shows the distribution of editors who participate in dispute resolution versus all editors (I will compare the results to the Wikimedia Editor Survey) and these questions were gathered somewhat from that survey. You don't have to do the survey, it's entirely up to you. Cheers, Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 02:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I really, really should not start this... but I can not resist it. Anyway, I do not think WMF (or any one else) knows the actual demographics of Wikiusers and any norms established via the other survey will likely have serious stratification problems. I would not rely on it for business decisions that involve money, but WMF is free to do what they wish. I see so many statistical errors in published literature this will be just one more. History2007 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple invites?
Hey Steven, it looks like you may be issuing multiple invites in some cases; you issued one to Rich Farmbrough at 12:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC) and then again at 01:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC). Also, Rich gave you some feedback in response to your first invitation. On an unrelated note, don't worry; I haven't forgotten your idea of automatically spotting disputes heating up before they boil over. I've just been insanely busy at work lately and had to put quite a few projects on the back burner. Seeing whether it's feasible is still on my To Do list (as you can see on my user page). Cheers! &mdash; madman 03:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I'm not sure how that happened, I worked off a 1100 editor long list and there shouldn't have been any duplicates. I am not seeing any comments that others are adding on their talk pages, I had my robot deliver the message and signed with my signature, so I'm probably missing a little bit. After this survey has been done it'd be great if we could make some progress on this robot. Early survey responses are giving me the info I was after, so I am very pleased. Cheers. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 04:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sven, you are still leaving this message on the talk pages of indeffed users despite saying you would sort this out. In some cases these messages to blocked users are highly inappropriate. Please point to the bot approval for this task. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought it fell under Bots/Requests for approval/SteveBot (which was approved long ago) but I realise the scope of the task in fact isn't that wide. I'll revert the additions to the indef blocked users talk pages, as I detailed on my bots talk page before, the researcher who gave me the list of users to query said there were no indeffed users there, but this is easily remedied. I've used my bot in the past to leave notices on peoples talk pages (such as Melbourne Meetup invites) and haven't run into problems before, so I assumed that my bot was indeed approved to do such tasks (but I see that is not the case). What should I do here? Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 10:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Questionnaire
Hello Steven. I have just spent about half an hour completing the questionnaire about Dispute Resolution processes. I responded to every question, and made some extensive comments in areas that permitted comments. When I got to the end I attempted to submit my work. I received a message saying "It looks like you have forgotten to answer a question or two." It presented me with the entire questionnaire but didn't show which questions I had failed to answer. I spent another quarter of an hour going through my work, looking for a question that I hadn't answered. I didn't find one. I kept trying to submit but I kept getting the same message - "you have failed to answer a question or two". Finally my patience was exhausted so I abandoned the exercise and came here to alert you to the situation. You have missed out on my responses - it would be good to fix the questionnaire so you don't miss out on too many others. Dolphin ( t ) 06:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, hang on. You answered every question and it gave you an error message. You're 100% sure all the mandatory questions were answered? I might have to test it out. Gimme a sec. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 07:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I just did the survey and only answered the mandatory questions, none of the optional ones. It submitted fine. Did you choose any "other" options? The only thing I can see that could have gone wrong here is if you wrote something in the "other" box but didn't click the radio button. Is that possible? If you could let me know that'd be great. Cheers, Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 07:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response. I answered virtually all the questions, including most (all?) of the optional ones.  My main point is that I have done many questionnaires like this before, and when I have forgotten to fill one of the mandatory fields it promptly shows me which field I have left empty.  With your questionnaire it didn't give the slightest hint as to where the problem was - it just kept presenting me with the entire questionnaire.  My second point would be this - the questionnaire is being completed by volunteers so what is the problem if they leave a field blank?  It's not as though these volunteers are expecting you to reserve airline seats for them, or send them tickets to a Broadway show.  If the problem occurred with me it is bound to occur with some others.  I made a valiant attempt to supply you with a lot of relevant information but the system failed to accept it, and now it has gone.  It will occur with others unless there are some quick changes to the system. Regards.  Dolphin  ( t ) 08:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With the survey, it's all done through Google Forms - so the way the system works isn't something I can do a lot about, unfortunately. I have made as many questions as possible optional, and provided some more instructions to help with any quibbles. If you are so inclined, you could always email me your thoughts. They would be most appreciated. (One last thing, I actually just now tried seeing what would happen if I didn't answer a question that was marked as required, and a red box came up surrounding the question. I can only attribute what happened to a possible glitch. Regards, Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 08:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I initially had the same problem. In my case the reason was a single choice question with many options including one of the "other" type with a text input field. I had put some text there but had not activated the radio button. In the end I decided that due to my having stopped contributing some time ago the questionnaire wasn't all that meaningful in my case anyway, and did not continue filling in after I had solved that problem. Hans Adler 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was the problem in the end. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 11:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. One hour. And the “It looks like you have forgotten…” alert. That is uncannily similar to what I independently commented on. Follow the below talkback template. Greg L (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Collecting age in survey
Hi, collecting of ages and other information in a survey is unethical. I note there is a 'Prefer not to say' for gender so why not for other information? I strongly suggest you are distorting the results as well as taking a liberty of wikipedia editors. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I note the two threads above also have a similar issue of questions not being optional. In addition the data is being stored on google. Way to go with the data mining. :( Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have concerns about relating demographic info with users? Are they? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @SunCreator, I disagree that asking survey respondents questions like their age, gender and rough location takes away any of their liberties. I also disagree that I am distorting the results of the survey. Many demographic questions I have asked are either identical or very similar to those that were asked in the Wikimedia Editor survey from last year. This was deliberate - it allows for easier comparing editors who have participated in dispute resolution versus all editors. Google Forms has been used for surveys in the past, and was cleared by the research committee for use, and with their stringent requirements on privacy, I doubt they'd approve the use of a sub-par survey tool. If you still have any concerns that I have not resolved, please forward your concerns to Dario Taraborelli - he will have email enabled, and is my contact at the WMF for this survey.
 * @Alan, Demographic information such as age, gender and location will be kept separate from the list of users. This survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee. You can find further information about the measures I am taking to keep the data secure at the Meta Research page. So, if I understand your question correctly, demographic information will be released through aggregate only, eg: X% of respondents are 40 and over. I hope that resolves your queries, but if not, please let me know, however I am retiring for the evening so will reply in the morning. Regards, Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 12:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

CVU Academy
Hello there! Your input is request at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy. You had commented on the re-formatting discussion at WP:CVU but have yet to comment on the progress done to implement a major change discussed during the reformatting discussion, namely the training for new anti-vandals. Any input would be appreciated, thank you. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My RFA nom page
Ha - man I so didn't see that you edited it. I went to the page to add It's Zippy, and was thinking - wow - the support/oppose/neutral was the same as the last person I nominated - how weird ..... Oh... wait... Doh. I don't win the observation award :). Need to move yourself into the top of that list at some point. Pedro : Chat  21:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you totally suck. I wonder if there's a "Fail at Life" barnstar? I would like to be in that top section one day, but I've been so busy doing behind-the-scenes work (preparing for survey, etc) that I haven't done much of merit on-wiki. Kinda given up on RFA, tbh. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 22:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fail at reading barnstar maybe? :) Your RFA will come when you're ready, I'm sure. Pedro : Chat  22:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's go with that. Maybe next year. I want to focus on dispute resolution for now, and that's not really enough to please the RFA crowd, I think. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 22:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is regrettable, as DR is incredibly important and should be recognised as such. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I have done stuff all lately. Been so busy with the survey and such. Maybe when this has all quietened down in the survey I'll be able to do some content work, comment in AFDs and such. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 22:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat ANI issue
Pro or Con, I would be interested to hear what you have to say, if anything, over on the ANI page regarding this incident, since you do have some familiarty with the issues/editors. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw this and meant to reply, but something else came up at the time and then I forgot. Glad to see it looks resolved for now, though. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 06:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124;c 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

The voting at Requests for comment/Abortion article titles
Steven,

Reading through the voting at the RfC, I cannot help but thank God that I am not an admin or whoever it is that has to make the decision. I am pleased with the strong support for Option 12 (which I supported before you ever became involved), but support is also strong for other options. I cannot imagine how anyone can make a decision that will withstand criticism. Is this not the most hopeless conflict with which you have ever been involved? (Oh, I'm asking with the understanding that you are not going to participate in the decision. If you are part of the decision making process, please delete my post here without responding--I don't want to get you in trouble.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Back in 2008, I mediated a case that lasted for 2-3 months. It was an Israel-Palestine dispute, over a single word - "uprising". It was closed as unsuccessful, because no compromise could be reached. That was the most hopeless conflict I've ever dealt with. This pales in comparison. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 02:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you help
Hi,

I have seen you Project Idea on Meta, about dispute resolutions. I am having a problem, which I try to describe in RFC on Meta. Can you help?--Juandev (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy
...belated, or belated birthday. I vaguely remember being 22; it was a long time ago, and I was probably drunk :) Pedro : Chat  20:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, not belated. It's my birthday today :-) Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 20:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, happy birthday Steven. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 20:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Have a good one, Steve! AGK  [•] 10:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anthony :-) Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Happy Birthday! Made it with two hours to spare. ;-) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually three hours. I haven't changed my clock on my talk page. I should do that now :-) Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 11:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Happy Birthday man! Hope you had a nice birthday! Mythio (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
Hope I'm not too late. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:Dispute resolution survey
Dear User:Steven Zhang, I received your message but upon clicking on the link, I was unable to access the survey. I hope you had a Happy Easter! With regards, AnupamTalk 01:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I don't know for sure. But it seems the survey is over. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the survey is closed, as the daily responses had dwindled down to one a day, or had stopped, and I needed to collate the results. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 20:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Abortion vote tally
I took the liberty of tallying the abortion article naming votes at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Abortion_article_titles. If you have any questions about my methodology, feel free to contact me by email, because I think I'm checking out of wikipedia for a while. Homunq (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll let the closing admins know. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Whenaxis Award

 * Thanks :-) This is going on my awards page :P 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediation?
Mind taking a look at please? Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 18:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 20:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Steven Zhang. The article over there is just another Balkans article that has a disruptive local user personally "attached" to it. Its not a real dispute. And part of what I do is I go about "detaching" such unfortunate articles from their WP:OWNERS. PANONIAN does not really have a sound argument of any sort, nor is he at all willing to openly accept that as a fact (you can see him right now, talking about some OR propaganda posters and coins). He will change his claims and his position continuously depending on whether it will specifically help his agenda on that article, namely the creation of a non-existent country. He is willing to "compromise", but I am not. Because we do not "compromise" between personal opinions and POV-pushing on the one side, and sources on the other. That is part of why I'm skeptical with regard to mediation. Mediators just want to succeed in their mediation, and as such, they are usually tempted to just assume the middle ground. But the middle ground here is nonsense. PANONIAN is just POV-pushing, and is wrong, whereas Peacemaker and I are just plain right. Where Peacemaker and I may differ, for example, is where there might be a "real" subject for disussion - PANONIAN's "disputes" would be laughed-off the talkpage on any more prominent article. This is about a user, not a real factual dispute.

These sort of disputes make plain a terrible flaw in Wikipedia's mediation process. Mediators tend to try and have users agree, where their priority should be researching the sources and basing their recommendations solely on them, regardless of whether they favor a party in the dispute or not. If I were ever to mediate, I would ignore the users and research the disputed issue, and then present my opinion completely without regard to what position the disputed parties have. Sadly, that has not been my experience. And frankly I cannot imagine that it ever will be. What mediator could possibly spend a month or two researching some obscure part of some obscure country's history?

What is necessary here is that the problem user be made to abide by Wikipedia policy, or leave the dispute. That's it. -- Director  ( talk )  12:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to read and reply to this tomorrow. Rather busy today, but just briefly, I believe in contentious disputes, an actively involved mediator that analyses the sources and gives input, is required. Not all mediators have the same modus operandi. Steven Zhang  Talk 07:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

British/Irish stuff
Howdy Steven. Does my topic ban 'prevent' me from discussiong British & Irish articles & such on other Users's talkpages? GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Steven, I'd like to draw this post to you attention. Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To me, edits like this aren't on. The topic ban covers all pages relating to UK and Ireland, so while discussing it isn't technically a violation, you have poked the bear, so to speak. It's a violation of the spirit of the topic ban, because essentially you've gone from making snide comments about others on article talk to edits on a user talk. I am not sure if you understand the severity of your actions. While it happened two days ago, I thought that a block is necessary here to prevent this from happening again. It gives you time to reflect on your actions, and realise that making comments about others in the nature you did isn't on. It's also a reminder not to feed the trolls, and not take their bait. Learn a lesson from this. Steven Zhang  Talk 06:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just as an FYI Steve - while this exchange between VanSpeijk and GD is borderline in terms of GD's topic ban (and not as blatant as the above) he needs not to go there. GD needs to show he's not "line stepping" - these comments are-- Cailil  talk 13:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll avoid giving 'you know who' future opportunities to target me, without a doubt. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)