Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Restoring Honor rally/Archive

I'd like to make a comment before deciding whether or not to participate in this mediation. I just noticed an editor has gone to the supposed description of the "Issues to be mediated" and began inserting commentary about editors who:
 * ... were investigated for sockpuppetry
 * ... had not taken part in recent discussions

If the focus of this mediation is to be about resolving content issues at the Restoring Honor rally article, then I would be interested in participating. If it is going to degenerate into an attempted besmirching of involved editors, as it seems to be already, then I think I'll pass. I'll keep an eye on the "Issues" section to see if it gets rewritten in a neutral way that describes the editing issues, and omits commentary about the editors. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotta love how the result of the sock puppet investigation went unmentioned. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from Mediation Page/ Issue Section

 * The entire crowd size section. There is a certain estimate of 87,000 by CBS News and AirPhotosLive.com which claims to be a scientific estimate of the crowd and thus the most authoritative. CBS devoted two news articles to the estimate, explaining AirPhotosLive.com's methodology for arriving at the estimate. The issue is the WP:WEIGHT policy. One group of editors thinks that since CBS detailed their estimate extensively, this estimate should thus get a detailed paragraph of its own in the section. The other group of editors thinks CBS's should be treated as all other estimates, believing giving a paragraph to CBS would be giving it undue weight and would imply to readers that CBS's is the only correct estimate and thus violating WP:NPOV.
 * How much can you say about fabricated estimates or non estimates, e.g. the no-one-can-say-how-many-were-there citations? Beck looked at photos, and using his intuition and nothing else, at least not any exspertise, came up with a number that flattered his vanity. We can say a lot about the Brian Williams 300,000, mainly he didn't know what he was talking about during a discussion forum on Meet The Press, not as an anchor person presenting a fact checked report. In other words, almost nothing to give weight except fantastical or uniformed opinions. On a personal note, if you were to exclude me from those who want the overuse of detailing of CBS's estimates processes, I would be grateful. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that this is the place to discuss this (probably should remove your reply and my reply from this section or add it to the talk, but I don't know what the process is here), but I had to respond to your "matter of fact" guesswork. Beck stated those estimates were based past estimates of crowd sizes and what those areas are reported to hold.  This is what most news media, event organizers, and non-official park services have used in the past for estimates.  The area around the reflecting pool is reported to hold 150,000 to 200,000 people, and it was full. The side lawn to the left when looking at the Lincoln Memorial is reported to hold 300,000 people, and that was full.  Then you had people under the trees and to the right of the pool when looking at the Lincoln Memorial. Similarly, the One Nation Working Together rally had estimates of between 175,000 and 200,000, but you can see looking at the photos that it was much less then the Restoring Honor Rally.  Likely both over inflated, but it's not based on nothing; it's based on past events and what that area is reported to hold.  Depending on density, a crowded National Mall can supposedly hold between 1.5 million and 3 million people.  Those estimates may not be scientifically accurate, but that's what events have used in the past for estimating crowd size.  Beck may be one of the few cursed with a scientific estimate - it's already being used as a point of comparision (MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Declares: ‘One Nation’ Rally Was Just as Big as Beck Event)  Morphh   (talk) 21:27, 07 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Using Newsbusters as a source? Comparing event organizer estimates to each other? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any, if any news organizations, besides CBS detailing how they arrived at their estimates, so how you found that out is of interest. Event organizers are not reliable sources, as Doig has pointed out, and if we cite any, then we need to throw in Doig's caveat against the class. There is no way to generally refer to how estimates have been done, except the scientific estimates are far exceeded by event organizers and supporters. The Honor Rally is no exception. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you guys should probably hold off on getting into debate, and let the mediator take us to the next step in the process. :)  All in good time... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

AzureCitizen speaks wisely. AGK  22:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Sure AKG. And he gets to chuck and keep his two cents worth on the project page, which spurred my response since I naively thought the floor was open. Ya know what I mean? Sooo, how did he gain that perogative? While your wearing the conceit of grown up Solomonic wisdom, wanna make it good and put his comments on this page? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, this is going to get confusing quickly if we aren't specific about what we're referring to. When you say "he gets to chuck and keep his two cents worth on the project page," are you referring to BS24's Issue Statement here, my Issue Statement below that (above where you added your own issue statement), or something that Morphh wrote? Which one? --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats rich. And you just happen to not remember the argumentive issue statement you just you put back on the project page? Too cute, Jim. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which "argumentative statement"? My version of the Issue statement, which I first posted here, on October 5th?  Or something someone else wrote? --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which one did you just restore? You know, the one I referred to "as the one you just put back." Need anymore help there? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a purposefully neutrally worded Primary Issue statement setting forth what's being contested that doesn't make arguments for either side and doesn't take any positions. It's the same statement I posted on October 5th before you joined the mediation.  What precisely is the problem you have with it here?--AzureCitizen (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me see, you ask a question, all I do is repeat what I said, and you quit talking about it, and switch to a defense of your issue statement. Kinda a switcheroo. Me, have a problem? Nah. Just gonna have a hard time believing you when you profess puzzlement. Let me extend you the benefit of the doubt and presume your repeated question was not genuine and advise you that it's best not to play dumb. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not playing dumb here; please do not insult me or impugn my actions. I am specifically asking, what exactly is the problem here? Why do you have a problem with the Primary Issue statement I posted in the Issues section back on October 5th? Why did you remove it from the Mediation page and move it to the Talk Page? Why did you post a complaint when I undid your removal of my Primary Issue statement? I genuinely do not understand what you are complaining or what you think the problem is here. --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aww gee. Now you gotta get all butthurt, and lose the conceit of good humor just when I was getting used to it. Remember coyly asking the same question twice and after getting the same answer a second time, you switched to something else? Yes, I am asking this for the second time, but what the heck, doubling up worked before. And in hopes that twice said assertions continue to get through to you,let me restate something: I wasn't pushing a grievance, so nah, I don't have a problem, but I will doubt how well you first read postings. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Grow up, The Artist. (Archiving this page now.) AGK   10:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)