User talk:Guy Macon - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StillStanding-247 (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 9 August 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:19, 9 August 2012 by StillStanding-247 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Start a new discussion thread

Welcome to Guy Macon's Misplaced Pages talk page.

Please Click here to start a new topic.
Please post your new comments at the bottom of the comment you are replying to.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply).
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to.
I delete or collapse most messages after I have read them. The history tab will show you a complete list of all past comments.
If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/User_talk:Guy_Macon.

"Misplaced Pages's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for stimulating a discussion between parties in a DR! DavidForthoffer (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Guy, just in case no one else has done it, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the work you're doing at DRN and to welcome you to the dispute resolution community. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to second this. You're a great help and you are doing excellent work. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius 14:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thirded. I love your prose: "stay and get into a rip-roaring fight that you cannot win".:-) cheersCurb Chain (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Heathrow example

For what it is worth, I think you handled a difficult situation with an apposite example, with charm and with friendliness. Backing off is also reasonable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You are more than kind :) thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks...

...for your timely assistance on the Jerash/Jordan thing. Both parties seem like genuine contributors and I expect some sort of consensus can be reached - but it's been boggling my mind a bit and I haven't had the time or brain capacity to tackle it on my own. DRN sounds like a great idea. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Good close on DRN

Dear Guy Macon, I admired your close on the Rape culture DRN for its timeliness, and aptness. Editors working on noticeboards don't often receive positive feedback, so please do know it was admired. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I managed to completely forget about the open RFC - sorry about that. If the dispute continues after the RFC, may I contact you for help on making a proper DRN? (I've never had to go through any dispute resolution before). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be glad to help in any way I can. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A Cup of Tea and Biscuits

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Sleddog116 (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wow, Guy. You just went through a ringer. Sorry that that turned into such a mess. Every DRN volunteer eventually gets a trial by fire. (Mine happened here, and those two are still at it months later.) You just take a break; I'll do my best to handle it from here. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Taking a break now. I especially enjoy the fact that you gave me a proper cup of tea. As my dear grandmum who grew up in central London often said to me, "only barbarians have tea without milk." :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank You! :)

A Secret Admirer has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better.

Message: Thanks for your help with Noscript and AdBlock Plus for FireFox!

Thanks

Thanks for the BLP work on Joe Paterno. That's tough work on a sensitive topic and I appreciate it. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Being a Mediator at WP:DRN, while rewarding, involves dealing with a lot of people who are used to getting their way through attacking anyone who opposes them, and it really helps when someone expresses appreciation. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Anti-Flame Barnstar

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		I hereby award Guy Macon the Anti-Flame Barnstar for his resilience and patience in the face of the considerable controversy surrounding the Joe Paterno article and its various trips to DRN and BLPN. That was a lot of heat you had to put up with there, and the article is all the better for how you handled it. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out edit conflict

I'm sorry; I saw there was an edit conflict in WP:DRN and thought I'd handled it. Clearly I was wrong; I'll have to be more careful in future. Thank you for sorting it out. NebY (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. You should see some of the mistakes I have made. One of the best things about Misplaced Pages is that mistakes can be undone with a single mouse click. BTW, have you ever read Misplaced Pages:Village stocks? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh that is delightful - thank you! I'm very glad that I don't have the skills or rights to join the list and that I don't need another challenge - at least, not right now. :) NebY (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your patience and perseverance so far with km/h. I do think this process will ultimately result in a better article, but for now, enjoy your beer and, at your leisure, drop by talk:kilometres per hour and contribute as the spirit move you. Garamond Lethe 03:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all of your hard work at DRN, for cleaning up those pesky infoboxes, and for just being a generally helpful guy. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Consultants

This is on my to-do list; right now I am swamped with work
I've been mulling over your comment on encouraging companies to recruit ethical consultants. I sort of fiddled with it in the essay, but it still feels inappropriate to me anyway. (others may disagree) But the thought of writing a blog post "How to pick an ethical Misplaced Pages consultant," has come to mind often. Every time it boils to the top of my mind, I realize how little credibility I would have on the topic. I wonder if it's something you would be interested in writing about if I found a top SEO or PR blog interested in a veteran editor's perspective. User:King4057 03:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC) That's a pretty good idea. Give me a few days and I will see what I can come up with. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Cool. I pinged a few of the top SEO blogs, but wouldn't expect to hear back over the weekend anyway. I'll shop the idea around a little. I think it would also be helpful to describe the circumstances where working with a company that doesn't have a Misplaced Pages consultant might be difficult, and when one isn't needed. For example, I get inquiries sometimes from someone who just wants to make a factual correction. People don't know what else to do. Part of the reason I invested the time in helping Hill & Knowlton is because a company shouldn't have to recruit a Misplaced Pages consultant to get someone to spend 20 minutes looking at their controversy, which uses POV sources and op-eds. On the other hand, I think there are many instances where the company's lack of investment in expertise to do the job properly can be really frustrating for volunteers. Leaves them to clean up the mess and so on. Just some thoughts. User:King4057 12:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Actually, another idea. It might be better to make it more broad. "One Wikipedians advice to companies." When and how to hire a consultant can be one part of that... I think that would have greater appeal. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Note: I haven't forgotten this. I am just on a hot project. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is on my to-do list; right now I am swamped with work

I've been mulling over your comment on encouraging companies to recruit ethical consultants. I sort of fiddled with it in the essay, but it still feels inappropriate to me anyway. (others may disagree) But the thought of writing a blog post "How to pick an ethical Misplaced Pages consultant," has come to mind often. Every time it boils to the top of my mind, I realize how little credibility I would have on the topic. I wonder if it's something you would be interested in writing about if I found a top SEO or PR blog interested in a veteran editor's perspective. User:King4057 03:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea. Give me a few days and I will see what I can come up with. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I pinged a few of the top SEO blogs, but wouldn't expect to hear back over the weekend anyway. I'll shop the idea around a little. I think it would also be helpful to describe the circumstances where working with a company that doesn't have a Misplaced Pages consultant might be difficult, and when one isn't needed.

For example, I get inquiries sometimes from someone who just wants to make a factual correction. People don't know what else to do. Part of the reason I invested the time in helping Hill & Knowlton is because a company shouldn't have to recruit a Misplaced Pages consultant to get someone to spend 20 minutes looking at their controversy, which uses POV sources and op-eds.

On the other hand, I think there are many instances where the company's lack of investment in expertise to do the job properly can be really frustrating for volunteers. Leaves them to clean up the mess and so on. Just some thoughts. User:King4057 12:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, another idea. It might be better to make it more broad. "One Wikipedians advice to companies." When and how to hire a consultant can be one part of that... I think that would have greater appeal. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I haven't forgotten this. I am just on a hot project. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

S-76 dispute

G'day from Oz; at times during the discussion I have wanted to act out the cricket bat scene from Shaun of the Dead. Thank you for providing some much-needed levity. Accordingly, I hereby award you this Barnstar:

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		YSSYguy (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Civility
		For seeing clearly that that we need to work together and reminding others to do so. Thank you. Avanu (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Misplaced Pages email:

The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
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. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski

This is of interest only for those who are interested in the Wtshymanski issue
You volunteered your user page as a collection point for the above user (and I learnt a long time ago never argue to with a volunteer!). I think it is time for a review of Wtshymanski's behaviour especially as I believe that it is not entirely improved. There are fewer edits than normal, but a few points have been noticed. We still have the usual sarcastic comments. Here (Nothing wrong with the edit, which was the desired outcome, but the summary was completely unnecessary given that a citation was called for for an unreferenced point). And also this one though perhaps not as bad as some. (Just In: Another one here .) Editing incorrect material on a subject that he clearly has limited knowledge (and this just a humble switch!) here . Mergeitis is back in vogue (here ). And as usual, the procedure at WP:M has not been followed as minimal notice is provided (target article not tagged etc. etc.). Most Wtshymanski edits are the usual rewritting of others' contribution to meet his requirements of editing style (too numerous to list here). But now for a new twist. Wtshymanski has taken to deleting other people's comments from article talk pages that he disagrees with. A blatant violation ofthe rules (WP:BLANKING). Here and here . The last one was a response of mine to an editor other than Wtrshymanski. I believe that we should now be requesting administrative intervention. How do we go about re-opening the RfC? It continues. Note only my reverted comment but a comment to that has been blanked (here ). I note that he didn't delete Andy Dingley's similar warning so this looks like a personal vendetta. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC) And again here where Wtshymanski somehow believes that the humble switch was invented in circa 2000. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC) A note has been left on Wtshymanski's talk page to make him aware which, no doubt, will be deleted unresponded to. I have gathered recently that this is considered a breach if Wiki etiquette. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Wtshymanski - is blocked. Only for 24 hours, but just maybe he may get the message which is probably the most desireable outcome. Full reason: Disruptive editing: Removing others' comments from talk pages without adequate justification (WP:TPO); this reflects a failure to take into account the result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC) As I mentioned before, I am volunteering my talk page as a central clearing house for this issue. If it becomes large enough I will create a sub page. The goal here is not to get Wtshymanski blocked or banned. The goal is to persuade him to stop the behavior that resulted in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC) I thoroughly concur. The ideal goal is for Wtshymanski to edit in a responsible manner and not create a hostile environment. Wtshymanski's recent absence from Misplaced Pages has thrown into sharp relief the difference in the atmosphere with and without his current contribution style. When I first contributed my £0.02 to the RfC, I was largely on the outside looking in. But since I added my bit, Wtshymanski has been following my edit trail and rewriting or just plain reverting substantial amounts - thus I got sucked in. Unfortunately, I got as exasperated as many others have done and worded responses to Wtshymanski in a manner that I otherwise would not have done. I note that the RfC permits further notes to be added to the bottom in a new section, and so I have taken the liberty of appending the latest behaviour to the RfC. It can be found ]. I note that the sarcasm and indeed abuse continues despite the block and have added this to the RfC as well. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) For those of you keeping score, Wtshymanski's latest bad behavior is removing other editor's comments from article talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Switch&diff=prev&oldid=502972954 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mobile_phone&diff=prev&oldid=502961029 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mobile_phone&diff=prev&oldid=502986735 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Switch&diff=prev&oldid=502986821 Also see: User talk:Sandstein#Wtshymanski. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Wtshymanski has had some good press recently on the RfC. I was in the process of adding my own as he seems to have been much more restrained of late. One or two bits of over zealous rewriting, but he seems to have accepted the alternative. Good on him. It was marred only by one (I hope) minor fall from grace. You can read my contribution . DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC) That's great news! I have always hoped that he would continue the productive editing while dropping the disruptive editing. It's a lot easier to teach a smart person to be nice than it is to teach a nice person to be smart. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC) For another twist in this soap opera, see my editorial opinion at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FWtshymanski&diff=504475257&oldid=504473819 --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry if I intrude on your talk page which I saw at User talk:Andy Dingley. But I might add to the story. First there is "Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively" (2011) and now :Wtshymanski is at it again with an AfD (today 2012) for Switched-mode power supply applications claiming main article covers everything relevant. and he decides that very few things may go there anything not allowed there is of course not allowed anywhere else either.. Electron9 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Several editors who are interested in the issues involving Wtshymanski monitor this section, so this latest issue will be looked at. It appears that he tried his usual deletion-by-merging, you reverted, and he put it up for AfD. Enough people monitor his edits that the deletion-by-merging would have been reverted by someone else if you hadn't done it, and I see nothing wrong with filing an AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC) He merges then "prunes" content not deemed worthy ;-), Anyway in the long run his behavior steals time from other people and impair articles. I hope some action is taken such that he can't go around and disrupt others this much and often. Electron9 (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is of interest only for those who are interested in the Wtshymanski issue

You volunteered your user page as a collection point for the above user (and I learnt a long time ago never argue to with a volunteer!).

I think it is time for a review of Wtshymanski's behaviour especially as I believe that it is not entirely improved.

There are fewer edits than normal, but a few points have been noticed.

We still have the usual sarcastic comments. Here (Nothing wrong with the edit, which was the desired outcome, but the summary was completely unnecessary given that a citation was called for for an unreferenced point). And also this one though perhaps not as bad as some. (Just In: Another one here .)

Editing incorrect material on a subject that he clearly has limited knowledge (and this just a humble switch!) here .

Mergeitis is back in vogue (here ). And as usual, the procedure at WP:M has not been followed as minimal notice is provided (target article not tagged etc. etc.).

Most Wtshymanski edits are the usual rewritting of others' contribution to meet his requirements of editing style (too numerous to list here).

But now for a new twist. Wtshymanski has taken to deleting other people's comments from article talk pages that he disagrees with. A blatant violation ofthe rules (WP:BLANKING). Here and here . The last one was a response of mine to an editor other than Wtrshymanski. I believe that we should now be requesting administrative intervention. How do we go about re-opening the RfC?

It continues. Note only my reverted comment but a comment to that has been blanked (here ). I note that he didn't delete Andy Dingley's similar warning so this looks like a personal vendetta. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And again here where Wtshymanski somehow believes that the humble switch was invented in circa 2000. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A note has been left on Wtshymanski's talk page to make him aware which, no doubt, will be deleted unresponded to. I have gathered recently that this is considered a breach if Wiki etiquette. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski - is blocked. Only for 24 hours, but just maybe he may get the message which is probably the most desireable outcome. Full reason: Disruptive editing: Removing others' comments from talk pages without adequate justification (WP:TPO); this reflects a failure to take into account the result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I am volunteering my talk page as a central clearing house for this issue. If it becomes large enough I will create a sub page.

The goal here is not to get Wtshymanski blocked or banned. The goal is to persuade him to stop the behavior that resulted in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I thoroughly concur. The ideal goal is for Wtshymanski to edit in a responsible manner and not create a hostile environment. Wtshymanski's recent absence from Misplaced Pages has thrown into sharp relief the difference in the atmosphere with and without his current contribution style. When I first contributed my £0.02 to the RfC, I was largely on the outside looking in. But since I added my bit, Wtshymanski has been following my edit trail and rewriting or just plain reverting substantial amounts - thus I got sucked in. Unfortunately, I got as exasperated as many others have done and worded responses to Wtshymanski in a manner that I otherwise would not have done. I note that the RfC permits further notes to be added to the bottom in a new section, and so I have taken the liberty of appending the latest behaviour to the RfC.

It can be found ]. I note that the sarcasm and indeed abuse continues despite the block and have added this to the RfC as well. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For those of you keeping score, Wtshymanski's latest bad behavior is removing other editor's comments from article talk pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Switch&diff=prev&oldid=502972954

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mobile_phone&diff=prev&oldid=502961029

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mobile_phone&diff=prev&oldid=502986735

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Switch&diff=prev&oldid=502986821

Also see: User talk:Sandstein#Wtshymanski. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski has had some good press recently on the RfC. I was in the process of adding my own as he seems to have been much more restrained of late. One or two bits of over zealous rewriting, but he seems to have accepted the alternative. Good on him. It was marred only by one (I hope) minor fall from grace. You can read my contribution . DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's great news! I have always hoped that he would continue the productive editing while dropping the disruptive editing. It's a lot easier to teach a smart person to be nice than it is to teach a nice person to be smart. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For another twist in this soap opera, see my editorial opinion at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FWtshymanski&diff=504475257&oldid=504473819 --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I intrude on your talk page which I saw at User talk:Andy Dingley. But I might add to the story. First there is "Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively" (2011) and now :Wtshymanski is at it again with an AfD (today 2012) for Switched-mode power supply applications claiming main article covers everything relevant. and he decides that very few things may go there anything not allowed there is of course not allowed anywhere else either.. Electron9 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Several editors who are interested in the issues involving Wtshymanski monitor this section, so this latest issue will be looked at. It appears that he tried his usual deletion-by-merging, you reverted, and he put it up for AfD. Enough people monitor his edits that the deletion-by-merging would have been reverted by someone else if you hadn't done it, and I see nothing wrong with filing an AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

He merges then "prunes" content not deemed worthy ;-), Anyway in the long run his behavior steals time from other people and impair articles. I hope some action is taken such that he can't go around and disrupt others this much and often. Electron9 (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For consistently excellent work in dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Question on DR

Hi. I noticed you used the phrase "A three vs. one consensus is generally enough to settle a content dispute, but I am still shooting for an agreement or compromise." I was under the impression that vote counting in WP was strongly discouraged, and that it is the logic/strength of the argument that was paramount. I've seen plenty of disputes where there were multiple editors "teaming up" against one or two editors (usually in a POV-battle), and yet the minority view was more consistent with WP policies. Some of the WP docs that talk about this are Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; and most importantly Misplaced Pages:Consensus, which says "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote". You are very neutral and skilled in DRN, so I'm sure you are aware of these policies ... my point was mostly on the phraseology used. Since many of the parties at DRN may be new to WP, I'm wondering if it would be best to avoid phrases like "3 to 1 consensus", because that might give the wrong impression. What do you think? --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I need to use different phrasing. I very much appreciate the input; this is one of those things where you write something without really thinking, and when someone draws your attention to it you immediate see that your wording needs to be improved. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. When I'm trying to help editors reach consensus, I try to avoid mentioning the vote count at all: it may cause new editors to think that the vote count is important. On the other hand, I have seen some disputes which have no good resolution (both sides are equally right) in which case a vote count (or even a coin toss) may be the way to go (there was a DRN on Bulgaria last week that perhaps fit into that category). But when it comes to POV battles, my experience is that there is generally a "right" policy-based resolution which may be the position supported by the minority vote. I plan on helping out at DRN some more in the future ... I'm sure I'll enjoy working alongside you. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Only 993062065 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993062065 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon (talk)

Filmnet at DRN

I wanted to gently help him understand the thing himself. As I see civility problems already emerging, I close the thread. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wise choice. Really good closing statement, BTW. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

SmashTheState / TurtleMelody

Per WP:DUCK, both indef blocked. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 04:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please can you help?

Guy Macon, may I ask you to read: "Separating the valid clean PARADOX from asymmetric scenarios", as well as and . My aim is to avoid the permanent mingle-mangle of various sources of quite different starting points in the MHP article, without distinguishing what the sources are based on, and what they are addressing. The article on the MHP should clearly show what those sources "really" intend to say, based on their own individual starting points. My English is not so good, and I want to help to finally clearly separate the clean world famous PARADOX from quite other scenarios outside the clean paradox, that of course are interesting to be presented, but that lead to quite different results. Such variants of differing scenarios should be presented after the clean paradox, so that the article can be beneficial for the reader. Please will you help me also, to formulate another demand of RfC? Would really be great. Thank you and kind regards. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to help in any way I can. I have printed that section out and will read it tonight. I will get back to you on this tomorrow. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

Can you clarify from here: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance#It_feels_like_a_pile-on. Have you interacted with these editors previously as a mediator in dispute resolution? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This started when I noticed that this group of editors had gone to WP:DRN four times in one week:

Focus on the Family

Filed by Still-24-45-42-125 on 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I made one comment on this one ("If anyone wishes to replace that long quote with a link, here it is") and applied the close template after Noleander had determined tnat it should be closed.

Chickfila, Winshape

Filed by 216.81.81.85 on 12:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I had no involvement in this one.

Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs

Filed by 72Dino on 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC

I made two comments on this one ("In case you were wondering about the 2000 character limit, this was filed before we added that, so it is under the old rules." and "Does anyone disagree with the claim that this has been resolved? Is there anything more we need to do here, or can this be closed as resolved?"

Political positions of Mitt Romney

Filed by Still-24-45-42-125 on 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This one had two dispute resolution volunteers working on it, me and Ebe123.

If you look at the closing comments by the other DRN volunteer (who quotes me) on the Romney page, you can see that we were facing the very real possibility of another DRN case every few days well into the future, so I decided to look further into the underlying issues. That's when I saw the block, the claims that the administrators who applied and reviewed the blocks had misbehaved by doing so, and later claims that I and another DRN volunteer had misbehaved by commenting on same. I made my best effort to explain WP:NOTTHEM, then gave it up as a lost cause and stopped responding -- probably should have done that earlier. Right now I am working on convincing the other parties to the series of disputes to avoid any hint of misbehavior on their part. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. Really, you're coaching them on how to get me blocked, because Lionelt has only had a small amount of success on that regard. You're also posting negative statements about me pretty much anywhere and to anyone. In short, you took it very personally that I was unhappy with DRN and you've been holding a grudge since then. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)