Note: Messages left on this page will be replied to on this page.

Talk archives

2003-2004 1 2005 2 3 4 5 2006 6 7 8 2007 9 10 11 2008 12 13 14 15 2009 16 17 18 19 2010 20 21 22 23 2011 24 25 26 27 2012 28 29 2013 30

Hello, Sunray, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to personally thank you. There is a clear consensus that ILADS is fringe. I put some closing notes on the page to thank everyone. I want to say that people did assume good intent even though I was someone who didn't understand the process well. I also want to make sure that you realize that my goal was pro-patient, and not pro ILADS. 300,000 people get Lyme disease per year (per CDC) and only 10% get treated. Some of the rest will live horrible lives. People are imperfect everywhere, but it is the Lyme war that is killing people. Polarization and lies are the enemy. We have two camps publishing hundreds of papers and screaming liar-liar at each other. I do think IDSA has a lot to answer for, but I don't ANYONE has conclusive answers. I was a bad messenger, and I now know that Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth, it is a reporter of the accepted truth, and there is nothing wrong with that.

P.S. The Lyme article should not accuse protesters of harassing. This is the USA. I never protest, and think those protesters are off the deep end, but it just seems really wrong to ridicule people for public dissent.

Thanks again.

Bob Bob the goodwin (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been an interesting process, for sure. The default position for Wikipedia is to avoid original research and to strive for neutrality. It seemed to me that Yobal's edit summary didn't give much context as to why he was reverting you. Some editors are, no doubt, engaged in a constant struggle with fringe proponents, so they likely see the benefits of being cryptic and decisive. You obviously know a lot about the subject, so you needed an explanation as to why that revert had happened. I very much appreciated the way you conducted the Request for Comment. I agree with your postscript. Accusing the protesters of being "harassing" would not likely meet requirements for neutrality (unless it was stated in a New York Times article or some such :) Sunray (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that DRN or mediation will work. I'd suggest an RfC but there seem to be too many issues. She also seems to not understand about forum shopping, as failing at RSN she took the same issue to NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will pass them along. Sunray (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Sunray

Thanks for conveying the decision of MedCom to accept India Against Corruption for mediation.

This is to request if you would be able to mediate on it as apparently there is a backlog and such requests turn stale.

All the parties to the dispute are agreeable to mediation.

Thanks (I am the filer) 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be able to let you know which mediator will take the case in the next couple of days. Sunray (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to update you that one of the MedCom mediators "Transporterman" had previously shared his views (now archived) on the article's talk page in Jun/July 2013 when there was significant edit-warring between an Aam Aadmi Party troll and an IAC intern/volunteer "ACFI" (editing in her personal capacity) which disrupted these articles. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sunray

Please take steps to resolve this RFM expeditiously or unmerge the articles to what they were 2 months back.

Thanks 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting. What should I do next? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:StAnselm wants to be added as a party to this (see my talk page). Is that possible?

Next step is to assign a mediator. I've made the request. Yes, we can add StAnselm. I will confirm that with the other participants on the case page. Once a mediator is confirmed, the mediation will proceed on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, I'll have a look. Re above StAnselm is one of WikiProject Christianity's most informed and balanced editors so that will improve things. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks. Sunray (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please reach out to Eusebeus. He seems to be editing infrequently these days, but his participation is required for a successful mediation. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Note2: There are many participants involved. The mediator who takes this case may want to discuss ways of making the process simpler. One way to do this would be to have the participants agree on spokespersons" With the growing number of parties selecting spokespeople is necessary. David and I will represent those who believe Papias is reliable re the Hebrew Gospel. I suggest the opposing view select User:PiCo and User:Ignocrates. PiCo has been a part of this process from the beginning and although he has brutally attacked my position, he has been polite...even kind toward me. His arguments have actually made me moderate my position. (A good sign for mediation). Ignocrates on the other hand knows "the ropes". He has been though this process before. Of course it is up to them to decide. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, though this will be up to the participants in discussion with the mediator who takes the case. I am going to copy your note to the project page. Sunray (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize that is taking me some time to work through this. I hope your Talk page is an appropriate place to note the following: (a) I have a small concern that the wording of the mediation issue posted by RetProf is not what PiCo drafted explanation here, but presumably it doesn't have to be. (b) 2 spokesmen each would work if both were limited to a set word limit. (c) User:Eusebeus has the longest experience with this issue. (d) thank you for your own patient and clear work in setting this up, you have already made me far less skeptical of the process than I was before, thanks for that also. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: PiCo has caused me to rethink my position re the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. I will no longer be contesting it. Indeed my Google Book search indicated virtually no sources that use the term "Hebrew Gospel hypothesis". My focus in the mediation will be the Gospel of Matthew per my filing. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I'd be happy to sign up - immediately if you so advise, but was waiting for User:Eusebeus to come back on line. He/she doesn't edit much these days, but this has been going on for 4 years and I recall he/she edited the article before the rest of us. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best to sign up now. We can wait a day or two for Eusebeus. However, it looks like we have a critical mass of participants. Since s/he doesn't edit much, we may have to proceed and have him/her join when able. Sunray (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew request of John Carter to be added (not sure how this got separated). Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sunray,

I noticed you were an on the Mediation Committee. I appreciate your guidance. I have politely the discussed a recent addition to the article Israel on the talk page. Some editors Talk:Israel#Palestinian state are refusing to cooperate in any form of dispute resolution. One is willing, but only if the resolution is binding. I strongly believe this issue requires the assistance of an admin and I favor dispute resolution and/or mediation, but their resistance is bring us to a standstill. I strongly support resolving this issue peacefully and I ask for your assistance and/or advice.

There is currently a dispute as to how to describe the geography of Israel in the lead of the article. Originally, the article read that Israel shared borders with the West Bank and Gaza Strip (among other borders). Some editors have insisted on adding "the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively," ignoring WP:UNDUE for the lead.

All reliable secondary sources put forward do not refer to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine. All sources indicate a Palestinian state is yet to be established, and it does not appear on any mainstream maps. AP, NY Times. The sources likewise never use terms like "president of Palestine," etc. In addition, they identify incidents originating there as from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, never as Palestine. In addition, encyclopedias and other sources that have country profiles for Israel do not refer to Israel as bordering "Palestine," nor do they have entries on any country called Palestine. (See, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica; Encyclopedia Columbia; Library of Congress Country Studies; Washington Post Country Profiles; Infoplease). Same with most Wikipedia articles.

Indeed, discussion of the status of Palestinian statehood is important, and it is included in the following paragraph, where it discusses the status of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations in the lead. Further explanation is included in the body. The intro describing Israel's geography should be kept neutral and factual. Reliable secondary sources guide us and they are in agreement with their terminology (using West Bank & Gaza Strip, or Palestinian territories).

Thanks for your query. I recognize that there are differing perspectives on this question, however I'm not sure that there is a mediatable dispute here. With respect to the sentence in the lead of the article you refer to: are you saying that the words "State of Palestine" should not appear in that sentence? The reason I ask is because a quick search shows that many reliable sources do use that term. Here's a sample:

• UNHCR - http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e486826
• Vatican Radio - http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/02/07/progress_in_talks_between_holy_see_and_palestine/en1-771286
• Al Arabiya - http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/01/30/Should-settlers-be-allowed-to-live-in-Palestine-.html
• Voice of Russia - http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_23/Palestines-leader-Abbas-to-have-talks-with-Putin-today-4166/

The sentence fragment you quote: "the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively," seems to reflect the differing points of view of the subject. Thus I don't see anything to mediate in this matter. One of the things I love about Wikipedia is that so many of its authors work hard at including various perspectives and finding ways to balance them. There can be valuable lessons to be learned from this. Best wishes. Sunray (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I regret asking this of you, but I would very much appreciate your review of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew mediation, in which I have requested that the currently involved mediator stand down. I would also ask you to review the mediator's talk page as well as my own. The existing mediator seems to be operating on the rather interesting basis that the parties of the mediation are all individually seeking to add their own "stuff" to the article. The fact that he is apparently already not only choosing to voice his judgments of the individuals involved, and to, I believe, rather amusingly seem to at least indicate that he is also, apparently, in a position to impose his somewhat ill-formed opinions on others, makes me believe that he is not competent to function in that capacity in this context. Also, in all honesty, I think it would be in the interests of the community if the person who does handle the mediation of this matter perhaps have a bit better basic knowledge of this subject, one way or another, than the current mediator has displayed. I believe his recent claim on the mediation page to the effect that it is basically impossible to believe that a tenured professor in the field of religion could not even conceivably publish a fringey book on the field of religion demonstrates, unfortunately, little knowledge of the publishing world, the egos and drive for "recognition" of some professors, and of the rather frequent appearance of sometimes wildly fringey books by tenured professors who want to make sure that their own, personal, opinions, many of which have little if any standing in the community, are recognized. Honestly, unfortunately, in many cases, that recognition itself has been the motivating reason behind their seeking such a position in the first place. Anyway, I believe it not unreasonable to request that this be dealt with quickly, if possible.

I will acknowledge that I, and others in this matter, have expressed serious reservations about the filing party of this mediation for years, and that, in fact, many of them took part in the recent request to have him banned. And I also acknowledge, honestly, that at this point my interest in continuing with this project is rather minimal, so, if you or someone else seeks to ban me or block me, honestly, I probably wouldn't mind. John Carter (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the Hebrew Gospel mediation. I know from experience that it is difficult to mediate when there are many parties. Establishing a workable structure is not easy, but I note that the mediation is progressing. I'm not clear about what you are referring to, above, as without diffs it is hard to make a determination. From my scan of the proceedings, I don't see anything amis, but I may have missed something. You say that your interest in continuing the mediation is minimal. You may wish to withdraw from the mediation, or just take a break from it. If you have a complaint, you should follow the procedures for that. The criteria are the following:

The mediator of a formal mediation case can be changed if:

• The mediator is not impartial in relation to a case or one or more of its parties;
• The standard of mediation undertaken by the mediator is not satisfactory; or
• The mediator becomes too inactive to properly mediate.

Mediators are experienced members of the Wikipedia community who have volunteered to help editors in dispute. I recommend that you work with Andrevan to support the mediation. If you do wish to make a formal complaint, please address it in writing by e-mail to the Mediation Committee. Please be sure to document your complaint with diffs. Sunray (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747. This IP has been blocked by User:Materialscientist for using an open proxy. I declined the user's request for unblock since the policy is clear, though I didn't do a proxy check myself. Unclear why a person claiming to speak for an organization would want to use a 'privacy protection service'. The proxy policy says that such an IP be blocked at any time but it's not a reflection on the user, so they can continue editing Wikipedia by another route. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Sunray (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(IAC here) As Edjohnston mentioned its not a reflection on us. IAC is closely monitored by the Government and various agencies. Privacy Protection is routine. Edjohnston has not appreciated (a) that we have already done all of what he has suggested before reaching mediation, (b) the Legal implications for opening an "account" to edit are different from editing as an IP. (c) That we are not interested in editing in this article's space and had requested the edits be done for us under WP:COI. Ideally we would have preferred this entire matter to be resolved through emails, but the OTRS volunteers are not equipped for cases like ours, and the WMF has a hands-off policy which throws BLP/LIBEL complaints for article subjects back to the Community - where there are SERIOUS "competence" issues for some editors along with with "cabals" (the same cabal on the IAC - and several other India related - articles)[1]. (IAC). 78.46.206.3 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that you believe that there there is a lack of competence on the part of the WP community. To my mind that reflects a misapprehension about how Wikipedia works. I've looked through your submission of issues and do that think that further attempts at dispute resolution would be useful (see my comments on the mediation talk page). Sunray (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:HRA1924 in connection with the IAC controversy. Thanks. HRA1924 (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you remove the comment "does not necessarily accept Wikipedia's Terms and Conditions..." All editors must abide by Wikipedia policies. Sunray (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI that might concern you - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_IDHT_even_after_mediation. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Please bear in mind that mediation proceedings are privileged. Sunray (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That proviso was irrelevant. The WP:TE extends long before and subsequent to the mediation. In fact, it should never have been accepted for mediation, IMO, because umpteen policies were being breached - such as WP:ROLE, WP:NLT and WP:MEAT - even before it got there. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you think that this is somehow different than other mediation cases we get? You can use any of the voluminous info on the article talk page as examples, just not mediation proceedings. What is significant is that the community eventually took action :) Sunray (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it was about as successful as could be expected; but there's an open question from one of the participants on the page now so I was thinking of leaving it open to see if anyone else would discuss that. Andrevan@ 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. It is often a good idea to temporize, IMO, to see if things will gel or otherwise evolve :)

I'm happy to close when you give me the word. Or you can close whenever you like, if you know how that works. Sunray (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's pull the trigger and close it. Thanks! Andrevan@ 23:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Nice work on a difficult mediation! Do you want to make a closing statement and pass on any messages to the participants? Sunray (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done. Thanks! Andrevan@ 01:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your change to the lead you changed that Amen is controversial to some of his methods are controversial. I think he is controversial is more accurate reflection of his reception. I think your phrasing is overall an improvement and this is not a huge issue to me, so I thought I'd just post a note here and see what you think. I think several of the sources describe Amen as controversial. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I was trying to reflect what some of the articles are saying about him—particularly about his use of SPECT as a diagnostic tool. To support what you are saying, I note that the source does say that he is "the most controversial psychiatrist in America." However, I have to say, that seemed somewhat over the top when their only evidence relates to Amen's use of SPECT. Perhaps we could find more authoritative sources on this (i.e., peer reviewed medical/psychiatric journals). Obviously we need to be careful in a BLP. It is a good discussion and I would be happy to pursue it further on the talk page. Sunray (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to API gravity may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• °F (15.56 °C), in which case a different value for the water density would be appropriate (''see'' [[standard conditions for temperature and pressure]]}.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray. Would you mind assessing these recent edits concerning articles on sustainability. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging these edits. They are certainly extensive. I've reverted all of the edits to the "Sustainability" article. This editor is eliminating sources and changing the article drastically, far beyond what it acceptable for a Good Article. The edits to "Sustainable Development" are also problematic, but it will take me awhile to go through them. Sunray (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you elaborate what you find problematic? Prokaryotes (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've summarized my concerns in a note on your talk page. I'm surprised at your seeming lack of familiarity with some very basic Wikipedia policies. Sunray (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the right place to express your concerns with article content is in the related article talk page. Prokaryotes (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have done. Sunray (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. link prokaryotes (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question about an open mediation board [2]. As I'm one of the parties involved, I'm trying to reach out and get a bit of information as to the status of the discussion; to this date the mediator was not able to initiate the process, and the topic was accepted by the board on April 11th. I understand that real world things might have prevented the mediator form proceeding with the discussion, and if that's the case can a new editor take over the duties and start the process? It's been over a month now with no progress in the dispute, but since I'm new to the process I'm not sure what to expect in terms of the mediation process, for all I know they may take this long on average. Thank you for your assistance. --COD T 3 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@COD T 3: Hi, I'm another Mediation Committee member. We are urgently arranging a replacement mediator for your case, and we're trying to get one in place within the next few days. I'm very sorry for the delay with your case: we weren't aware until recently that Seddon, the mediator assigned to your case, had disappeared. Thank you very much for your continuing patience. AGK [•] 11:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray, I do appreciate (and thank you) for your invitation to join the mediation re Oscar Lopez Rivera. I have not joined it for a valid and ongoing reason. This mediation was opened by an editor who has repeatedly filed DRs with respect to Oscar Lopez Rivera -- and when the DR did not go his way, Rococo simply ignored it and continued to edit as he saw fit, in opposition to the results of his own DR. Here is an example, taken from the first DR. When Rococo saw that the DR was not "going his way," he never bothered to participate further, even while making hundreds of edits in Wikipedia during that same period of time. Please note the volunteer's advice:

Thanks Sarason (talk · contribs) for your inputs. Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) we now have a reliable source<ref name="Rivera2013">{{cite book|author=Osacar Lopez Rivera|title=Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ccacNFEWDAAC&pg=PT9|date=1 February 2013|publisher=PM Press|isbn=978-1-60486-833-3|pages=9–}}</ref> which states (Oscar Lopez Rivera).. is imprisoned for the “crime” of seditious conspiracy, again the quote is from the original text. I tried looking up the subject and found another <ref name="Marcovitz2000">{{cite book|author=Hal Marcovitz|title=Terrorism|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3b7yqAQH_pcC&pg=PA45|date=February 2000|publisher=Infobase Publishing|isbn=978-0-7910-5264-8|page=45}}</ref> source which says that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government of US by force, but again does not include the term violent crime in its description of charges. A book by Joy James <ref name="James2007">{{cite book|author=Joy James|title=Warfare in the American Homeland: Policing and Prison in a Penal Democracy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=csjtHiEJ7-MC&pg=PA159|date=20 July 2007|publisher=Duke University Press|isbn=0-8223-3923-4|page=159}}</ref> adds armed robbery and lesser charges to conspiracy charges but does not include violent crime anywhere in its description. All three authors focus more on the conspiracy angle and stay clear from concluding that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime. This list would not include the Huffington Post article<ref name=HuftPost>{{cite web|last=Marentes|first=Luis A.|title=On Questions of Status: Puerto Rico's Relation to the U.S. and Oscar López Rivera's Fate|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luis-a-marentes/on-questions-of-status-pu_b_3648246.html|publisher=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/|accessdate=12 April 2014}}</ref>which states López Rivera was convicted on conspiracy charges and was not linked to any deaths or injuries related to the bombings (emphasis is mine). Concluding that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime based on material which is a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) is either Original Research (WP:OR) or Synthesis (WP:SYNTH) depending on interpretation, but is not supported by the vast majority of published material out there. Would there be anything I missed, or you would like to highlight otherwise? --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After eight days with no response from Rococo1700 (from April 12 until April 20), the DR was then Closed as stale. This was the DR that Rococo1700 himself filed, and this was the result.

The penultimate sentence in the mediator's final opinion was especially significant. It found all of Rococo's government reports to be a PRIMARY SOURCE:

"Concluding that Oscar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime based on material which is a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) is either Original Research (WP:OR) or Synthesis (WP:SYNTH) depending on interpretation, but is not supported by the vast majority of published material out there."

Shortly after this DR, Rococo proceeded to insert precisely the Primary Source material that he was advised not to include. When that material was reverted, Rococo filed yet another DR that again did not "go his way." It was closed as stale after 11 days, when no volunteer chose to consider the case.

Subsequently, the Oscar Lopez Rivera page was temporarily blocked in order to allow for some type of editorial consensus to build. Rococo tried to circumvent this block by requesting an administrator to insert his Primary Source material (during the block) -- a request which was firmly denied.

Now Rococo has opened a mediation page with a one-sided retinue of editors (who have been editing Oscar Lopez Rivera for just a few weeks - a strong sign of recent "recruitment.") However, given the history of Rococo repeatedly seeking his (and only his) editing objectives, and ignoring the results of his own DRs, it is evident to me that Rococo is gaming the system -- and will ignore the result of this very mediation, which he himself opened, if it doesn't concur with his agenda.

For this reason I have expressed my intent to edit fairly, with citations and sources, and by consensus. It is a better and more constructive use of my editing time, than participating in a mediation process which (as evidenced by Rococo's prior DRs, and his disregard of those DRs) is not being conducted in good faith.

Sunray, I invite you to review the talk page of Oscar Lopez Rivera and to review these two prior DRs,HERE and HERE, so that you can reach your own independent judgment about all this. The editing history speaks for itself. Thank you again for your kind invitation regarding the mediation. Sarason (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perspective, Sarason. I had looked over the Oscar Lopez Rivera talk page and will shortly be indicating the Mediation Committee's decision to accept or reject the case. If you or other editors believe that there is a conduct issue there are several avenues open to you. One such avenue would be to raise a concern at one of the administrators' noticeboards. In the meantime, would you be able to indicate your agreement (or not) to this mediation? You are welcome to indicate the reasons for your decision on the "Parties agreement to mediation" section of the mediation page. Sunray (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so, and will enter the above in its entirety. I'm sorry for not entering into the fray (yet again), but I am worn out by Rococo's trolling and bad faith behavior. Sarason (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray,

I believe we discussed this issue a while back, but I could be thinking of someone else, in which case please ignore me. The issue of whether to call WP's article "tar sands", "oil sands", or by another term is again being discussed (here). Thought you may be interested to know. I sure was. Best, petrarchan47tc 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was me. I will enter the fray. Sunray (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the common name for cigarettes was "cancer sticks" (meaning that more people were using that term than the former), would WP be obligated to use the common term rather than "cigarettes"? I'm not as familiar with the guidelines as I should be, admittedly. Why is the article for "Prozac" called Fluoxetine if rules state we must use the "common name" for article titles? It appears to me that the 'rules' change, or are over/under-adhered to, in relation to monied interests. When you look up "Roundup", you get: "Roundup, brand-name of an herbicide made by Monsanto, see glyphosate". The pharmaceutical industry and Monsanto are two examples of special interests that have found and are exploiting some sort of loophole.

With the oil sands, the issue of the re-branding is in the press these days, as is the fact that both terms are unscientific and politicized. I can't imagine that there is no caveat for the "common name" rule when the common name is incorrect and/or the direct result of a spin campaign, which can be easily proven. I don't see a caveat in WP:COMMONNAME for this case, and wonder what kind of (hellish?) process it would take to add one to the guidelines.

Finally I wanted to ask, if you are seeing as much spin on WP as I am, how you keep from screaming and walking away for good? petrarchan47tc 21:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see more spin on WP than exists in the wider world. Sunray (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But in the wider world, you have no control over it. You can only watch. WP is where, ideally, we have some influence. petrarchan47tc 23:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have about as much influence in the wider world as I do on Wikipedia. Here, I follow policies and pick my battles. As I've said on that talk page (in so many words): tar is tar; usage is usage. The evidence in favour of "oil sands" as usage is pretty overwhelming. I was surprised. An encyclopedia does not lead opinion. We follow. When the wider world changes, we amend our articles. But within that, so much can happen... Sunray (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sincerely glad you still witness sun rays in your experience here. I have reached complete and utter burnout, having just experienced a few months' of 'last straw' experiences. I know that there are many who see things like you, and enjoy just to keep plugging away. One day I will get there. Thanks for your help, petrarchan47tc 23:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sunray,

I seek your input on the neutrality and weighting of "Social Control" because you said they had been fixed: I believe they have returned. Duxwing (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Sunray (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sunray. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dear Sunray: Hello there! Thank you for your messages. I am so sorry for my delay in processing the mediation requests to which I'm currently assigned. I'm afraid that real life — if such a thing exists — has taken precedence for a little while. I shall, however, be proceeding with both cases immediately. The Pure Heroine mediation I think has petered out; but the Schiller Institute one I believe will have benefited from some indepth research, and I am going to proceed with it today. --Tristessa (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for the update. "... if such a thing exists" LOL. Sunray (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Umbach until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Big_iron (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray! In one of your last comments before closing my mediation request for Pariah state, you said it seemed like we were understanding each other, something like you thought we were working effectively on our own. I just wanted to let you know we did, and not just the two of us either. People started talking again and came to an awesome and unanimous consensus about how to deal with the controversies, and the article looks great! (I mean stable and peaceful and focused on the topic.) There's not even a hint of dissent or edit warring! Turns out we all wanted to just get rid of the contentious content (the list of pariah states) altogether. The disputes were all about "Well, if we're gonna have a list, then X needs to be on the list too!" Anyway, I wanted to make sure you knew how that ended. Thanks for everything! Dcs002 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request for arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_India_Against_Corruption_editor --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader of Wikipedia I stumbled onto an entry for Gonzola Lira and I was dissatisfied with the factual quality, and promotional tone, of the entry. I clumsily performed a rewrite after researching supporting links. This took more edits than I would have liked (TOS violation for sure). I figured out that there was some sort of revision war, and I figured out how to use Talk rather than falling into that trap. At present the entry has been reverted back to a form that lacks NPOV, and instead provides marketing support for Lira. An example of this would be writing the entry in such a way that the reader would draw the false conclusion that Lira has a Bachelors and Masters credentials. MILH talk Without prejudice any revision that I do to correct to NPOV and fact will just be reverted by MILH. I took the time to edit this entry so I could rely on Wikipedia in the future.

I attempted to create a NPOV request with notification.. I don't have the rights to do so.

173.68.144.130 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)173.68.144.130173.68.144.130 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Short History of Progress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your instructions, you mentioned "As an option, you may take an additional 200 words to speak about how your interests may align with those of other participants." Initially I placed an entry within one editor's "statement" section, but then removed it. Where does it belong? In a discussion section below Statements? In addition, I agree with Golbez in three respects, but have questions/reservations about his conclusions, which he could answer with sources/references. How do I make those known? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts. 1) Participants should probably address questions to the mediator on the mediation talk page. 2) The intention of my suggestion about interests was to look for "how your interests my align with those of other participants." The idea here is to begin to look for common interests. In conflict we tend to focus on differences not commonalities. To get resolution, it is often productive to look for common interests. 3) Yes we should have a discussion section, but let's hold off until participants have all had a chance to make their statements. As to references, it might be a good idea to have a sub-page for reliable sources. Would you be willing to set that up? Sunray (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my first mediation, I am unsure how to proceed, I thought it would be more efficient to ask procedural questions here, but I guess the whole section could be transferred to the mediation page. I would like to contribute, but I am on the wrong side of the "digital divide" here I'm afraid, --- I could set up a sub-section for reliable sources on the mediation page? Thanks for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I favor listing the incorporated territory and population thereof as primary with the territory and population of incorporated and unincorporated as secondary. The incorporated territory is uncontestedly part of the US while the unincorporated territory is debatable. Given that, it seems most reasonable to list the uncontested figures first. However, I have decided that I am no longer interested in participating in the case. --Khajidha (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that you will be leaving the mediation. Sunray (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the mediation talk page, another editor, in response to your request to shorten the opening statements, acting in good faith, refactored my statements of agreement. One comment that I made was omitted. I would like reassurance that, in the future, my signed comments will not be refactored by other participants. (As mediator, if you think that there is something wrong with my comments, you are in control. I hope that you won't find it necessary to delete or hat my comments, but you have that power. I don't want anyone else to do that in good faith.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that participants should not refactor others' comments. I avoid doing that myself. I will put a note to that effect on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez wrote, about The Virginia Historian: "I would very much prefer if you would refrain from ever speaking for me. You have made it clear you will falsely represent me, so I don't want you to represent me at all, whether it be true or not." We know that there is bad blood between these two editors. Can you, as the mediator, try to stop them from introducing low-intensity odors into the mediation discussion? Also, Golbez appears to have said at least twice that he is ready to "bow out" of the mediation. Since his concerns about consistency (which I thought I shared) were part of the original problem that brought us here, I don't think that mediation can continue without his involvement, unless he is bound by it anyway (which we could do by RFC, but that would be contentious). Mediation certainly won't be useful if he isn't involved and reserves the right to engage in hit-and-run personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your concern. I saw that comment shortly after Golbez made it. I viewed it as a request. One part of it is borderline, imo: "You have made it clear you will falsely represent me..." I agree that that seems indicative of bad blood. However, TVH did not dispute the statement, which I see as an indication of good faith. Both editors seem invested in the mediation, although Golbez is asking a question about the scope. I have responded with a "progress update" on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just so you know, Dispute resolution in March 2013 came down to familiar names and phrasing [3].

• Can you live with… The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly called the United States (US or U.S.) and colloquially as America, is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. ... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. — yes: TFD, Golbez, older=wiser first choice (Bkonrad), CMD.

• Can you live with… The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA, U.S. or U.S.A.) and colloquially as America, The territories have differing degrees of autonomy. — yes. TheVirginiaHistorian, second choice older=wiser (Bkonrad), Collect, Gwillhickers, Mendaliv, RightCowLeftCoast.

Consensus discussion led by Mendaliv on United States Talk page included this exchange, with TFD adamantly opposing:

• The United States (US or U.S.), commonly called America, and officially the United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions.

"I might could live with this one." --Golbez (talk) 1:15 am, 24 February 2013, Sunday (1 year, 11 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5 [4]

— You will notice how very close this last draft language is to our mediated Proposal Y, which Golbez once "endorsed". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You collapsed some of my comments, but left TVH's reply to them, addressing me, outside the collapse. That was very confusing, because TVH appeared to be replying to something that I didn't say. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want to start to get statements of agreement. So do I. But I can't start agreeing unless I know what I am being asked to agree with. If I feel that I am being pushed to start agreeing with things while having to unhide things to see what the agreement is, I won't be able to agree. I don't think that I am being that difficult; I just want to know what issues are the blocking issues. If I shouldn't ask what is being said to be horrible, then why not hide the "horrible" comment rather than my puzzlement about it? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were clumsy in deciding what to collapse, then I understand. But if you think that I shouldn't be asking questions about harsh statements, then maybe either the harsh statements should be collapsed or maybe I would prefer to see a more active style of moderation. Maybe I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you were upset at my collapsing of your comments. I was aware that you might feel that way, but hoped that you would understand. I realize that you came later to the discussion and were just reacting to what others had said. What I was trying to do was to separate specific comments relating to the proposed text. Collapsing text is necessarily arbitrary. One has to start and end somewhere. I tried to use the litmus test: "does the comment relate to the proposed text." I thought about omitting the part of TVH's response where he was replying to you, but he did get back on topic, so I left it. I would be happy to consider restoring any text that you think needs to be included. Sunray (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt at setting up a simple format for editors to follow my example and indicate which of the leads are supported in a first-second-third choice format. I think that it would be helpful if you would ping each of us just below the section header “Poll of choices, additional proposals”. Thanks in advance, I am afraid that my initiative alone will not carry all participants to the table. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the initiative. I will keep my eye on how many participate and ping the others. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a variation of this post to each of the participants in the mediation, hoping to trigger a response --- leaving out Golbez as he as asked to be left alone on this subject...

At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”,

D.2. The United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction. [note]

This can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants.

• a) The federal republic consists of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories. or,
• b) 50 states, a federal district and other territories are in its national jurisdiction. -- or —
• c) a federal district and other territories are in a non-state status. — or —
• d) a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction but outside the federal republic.

I do not believe d) is a correct inference from the ambiguous statement, so I would like a clarifying footnote citation from the State Department “Common Core Document” to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, noting Item 22: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." and, item 27: “...outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." [5].

Any thoughts in response to this redraft, --- or any main principles up front, in response to Sunray's invitation below for a priori Principles-for-objection before trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses?

So far, only Robert McClenon has responded, but I only recently posted the last three today...copy editing each post towards the 200 words as I went along... I agree with you that we are close to agreement, if we can overlook the tangents, disruptions and baggage of the past ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Sunray (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite real differences between those legally trained and this historically trained, I find it difficult to believe that both in the Dispute Resolution of 2013 and the Request for Mediation of 2015, a two-man tag team can thwart 3-1 majorities with the complaint there is no consensus to include U.S. islander citizens in the U.S. for the 21st century.

The point is to edit the lead U.S. article sentence to include islanders judicially held as “aliens” and a “danger” to the American republic a century ago. They are no longer. The Insular Cases are gutted by sequential Congressional action in the post WWII modern era. The remnant of territory “unincorporated” is internal taxes and tariffs “in a domestic sense”. Congress by mutual internal self-determination in plebiscites, has made citizens/nationals, provided elective self governance under protections of federal district courts, and made participation in the nation's councils by delegate Members of Congress within the constitutional political framework of the United States.

This is the sourced conclusion of six scholars, none opposed. The only counter is editor original research interpreting gutted court cases with a point of view which is anachronistic in the 21st century. I refuse to believe that one editor declaring a process where he is in a minority is an “abortion” can ruin three months collaborative work among eight editors. Of course no one wants to replace Golbez as the administrator on the U.S. page; his presence would be missed if he carries through on his threat to quit on the United States article Talk page and retreat into making his wonderful maps.

But how to gain final endorsement of the consensus; I've yielded to the only actual proposal stated by Golbez, but he reverted his proposal before allowing discussion, almost as though he did not want to say anything which might be agreed to? When I agreed to his draft lead sentence, he said he would withdraw it out of "spite". Can one bad apple really spoil the barrel amidst collegial collaboration? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. I've clarified, on the mediation project talk page, what is needed in order to hold, or hold up, consensus. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope older/wiser and I have hit on a formulation for the lead sentence which can carry a consensus at the United States talk page. I solicited the opinion of a frequent editor, and found she agreed with our lede. The key seems to be presenting the U.S. islanders as “of” the United States, -- "native born" per the Census -- by geography, national jurisdiction, political framework, — avoiding any tangential reference to territory status as “a part of” the U.S., — however gutted the judicial “unincorportated-1901” may be in the contemporary era in the eyes of scholars and for the islanders themselves.

No one has taken exception to using Golbez' unproposed proposal to leave the US/DC area in the info box with a footnote reporting the U.S. “states and other areas”. But only one other has endorsed it. Does Golbez as a silent partner make a working consensus of three? In any case it seems that the issue which brought us here should be resolved as unobtrusively, uncontentiously as possible -- and a footnote may be the answer for a mediator  Done.

Procedurally, we again have some exchange, then a five + day pause. I wonder if the lede and note are sufficiently hammered out among the parties to justify your pinging us all for a final round up. It seems that if I try to do it, it is met by a resounding wait-and-see-a-week response. I think that participants in the mediation believe they have already made their approval/disapproval known on the fundamentals, and see no reason to reiterate their position on the incremental changes. If we are done with the amendments, maybe we can wrap up at your summary and final call. Who posts to the mainspace, to the Talk page?

Do you have a format/formulation for an RfC? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work. RfCs are fairly straightforward: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Some things we should think about: 1) What projects should we include? 2) Is the wording of the RfC clear? and 3) How will the discussion be moderated? I am away for a few days this week--though I will look in on the page. I should be able to moderate next week and can ask another mediator to join me. Sunray (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Colin Maud article, wrt to Colin's family. Why don't you want mention of his son?

I've restored that edit. While the wording is a tad awkward, it seems factual. Sunray (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, RightCowLeftCoast and TVH have approved the recap lede sentence and note over the last 20 days. Is it time to ping the others to confirm the consensus?

Projects in an RfC at Talk:United States might include United States, Geography, Politics. The RfC might be worded,

Shall we adopt the lede sentence written at the Request for Mediation describing the geographical area of the United States for the general reader as sourced to State Department and scholarly publications? The implication for the info box is to footnote the total area of the “States and other areas” as reported by the Census.

"The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]

"Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016."

The RfC draft leaves out any mention of the contentious technical aspects of constitutional status in the territories and possessions, as does the draft lede sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Sorry to have been MIA. I was away and since I've been back, have been playing catch-up. Yes, I agree with you. we need to ping the other participants for a final look. I will do that shortly. Sunray (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thank you for your good offices. I trust it is not considered uncivil to challenge unsourced illogic with a) citation for counter-sources on the substance, b) logic textbook citation for false reasoning and c) attempts at "settlement" compromise language for the minority. I've copy edited my remarks down to 193 words to meet the previously stated 200 word limit for the RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your summary? I'm having some difficulty figuring out exactly what we intend to post for the RfC. I think that we should try to assemble exactly how we want the RfC to appear. Perhaps I will establish a new section for that.

BTW, I've boxed some of your recent remarks on the mediation talk page. I've used the term "Off topic," but frankly they are ad hominem. A word to the wise... Sunray (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unwarranted opinion, if I may, regarding the pending mediation process on the "United States" entry. We're nearly there! You may consider taking things without haste, in stride, and letting things develop a few days more. Do not let "mediation fatigue" overtake the process. Great work so far, if I may so, by the mediator! -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Mediators don't always get positive feedback. It is also good to get your perspective on timing. Sunray (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sunray, let me know if you need any help with your US RfC. I'd be happy to lend a hand if that would be of benefit to you, the participants and the process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! The draft RfC can be found here. I would appreciate any thoughts/suggested modifications you have. Would you also be able to take a look at the "Some additional issues" section below that and let me know your reaction? I'd be particularly interested to hear any thoughts you might have about #3. Participants are currently deciding on whether/how to present the summary table they prepared. I'm hoping that they will opt to include it as I think it summarizes the issues well. I will be away next week, so I imagine we will be able to get going during the week of June 22. Does that work for you? --Unsigned comment

Yes, sounds good. I'll look at the items you've suggested.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments:

1. As a newbie its not clear to me in the RfC draft proposal where the 'note' will appear. Right after the sentence? or as a footnote at the end of the lead. This should be made clear in my opinion.
2. I like the suggestion by one of the MedCom participants that they all agree beforehand to avoid responding to each other's statements and that they agree not to challenge or respond to the comments of other RfC participants as well. It will still be an issue but it will be less of an issue and easier for us to facilitate if we have some prior agreement to reference. They should make their initial RfC statement and then walk away and let the chips fall where they may.
3. I don't think its necessary to mention talk page guidlines as part of the RfC.
4. The default duration for an RfC per WP:RfC is 30 days. To avoid controversy I suggest we go with the standard time.
5. I don't think we should define how we will evaluate the RfC except to say we will use existing policies and guidelines such as WP:RfC and WP:Consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when the RfC starts (or I'm needed for something else). I look forward to working together! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to admonish one or two editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD has created a statement of over 200 words using the guise of extended "footnotes". Can they be removed or collapsed in a box, "TFD extended comments"? It seems to violate the spirit and letter of the RfC directions, creating a wall of text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can avoid walls of text by restricting your comments to your statement. You began a new thread, surely likely to exceed 200 words if not checked that says, "The US does not proclaim itself illegal...." That misrepresents what I wrote and invites me to add to the pointless discussion. What I wrote was, "Some scholars have argued that the territories are part of the U.S. and consequently current government policy is illegal. That is a minority opinion." Mentioning a minority opinion of scholars is not the same thing as saying it is the position of the U.S. In fact I stated that the U.S. does not claim territories are part of the U.S., hence their position that the constitution does not apply in full to them is in their view legal.

I realize you disagree with me, but it is unhelpful to misrepresent me.

TFD (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is an error of fact, the USG does claim the territories as within its constitutional framework to the UN, as sourced. You launch into unsupported speculation on your own authority. No scholar supposes them "external" to the US as you have previously asserted, that is a term of your own making. The federal system allows for considerable flexibility in territory self-governance. No scholars in sources used by the Mediation argue that "the US government policy [in the territories] is illegal." You have provided no source of such a claim by the straw man "minority" opinion of unnamed "scholars", which is, in any case, besides the point of the Mediation proposal concerning the geographic extent of the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, it's a TFD post besides the point to create a wall of text on Sunray's page. Your statement of over 200 words should be truncated at 200 words in a collapsible box, or otherwise managed to conform to the guideline if you persist in violating procedure. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention the UN in my statement in the RfC or in my posting above, so do not know why you are bringing it up. I explained my position to you years ago and you have had lots of time to prepare your own statement without dragging out the debate. I have likewise pointed out to you that your position misrepresents sources and is logically incoherent, but am quite willing not to dissect it again in the RfC. TFD (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations:

1. The 200 word limit was a request from the mediator to participants in the United States RfM. It is only a suggestion for the RfC.
2. The idea of putting the footnotes into a collapsed box seems like a good one to me. TFD: Would you be willing to do that?
3. TVH, I note this comment: "Oh, wait, it's a TFD post besides the point to create a wall of text on Sunray's page." This seems a clear example of focussing on the contributor rather than the content. You have been around WP long enough to realize that it is usually wise to follow Wikipedia:Etiquette, no?

Sunray (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. TFD is entitled to his 175 word statement, but not the 925 bibliographical essay. He is entitled to his narrative, and I quote with notes removed:

"The position of most legal experts as well the Supreme Court of the United States, the executive and Congress is that the unincorporated territories of the United States are administered by the United States but not part of the United States. The legal position was settled in the Insular cases, which is still good law. As a consequence, the Constitution does not apply in full, although it does protect the fundamental human rights in those territories. Recently, the Supreme Court has decided that these same rights apply to detainees in Guantanamo Bay. However, other provisions do not apply. Hence there is no birthright citizenship in American Samoa, there are different federal tax rules, etc.

The U.S. government treats the territories as part of the U.S. for some purposes and has for example extended by legislation birthright citizenship to four territories. That has not changed their constitutional status.

Some scholars have argued that the territories are part of the U.S. and consequently current government policy is illegal. That is a minority opinion."

But he is not entitled to 1100 words. The RfC states, "Initial Statements of 200 words, max". Keithbob said he would await your return before taking action. Although it would be best for TFD to do it himself, so as to make up a box-able bibliography. The reference box for the Mediation Source table used in the Statement by Alanscottwalker numbers about 200 words, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case of WP:TLDR to me. Sunray (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To date, the discussion in the two sections “Enumeration of the territories” and “Sources” could be collapsed into respective boxes labelled “Mediation participant comments". TFD has suggested the solution for "Sources", The Gnome has noted the potential problem at "Enumeration of the territories". This would avoid the wall of text off-putting to editors invited to the RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good idea. Sunray (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob collapsed "Sources" into "Mediation participants side discussion", then let Golbez and me talk through his concerns ... we ended up with

...with me favoring Alternate A enumerating the five major territories together larger in population to each of the 26 smallest states, and Golbez favoring Alternate B, I think. Alternate A would give Golbez 70% of his proposed copy edit. The primary advantage to both is that they do not enter into areas of international territorial law, relative to "disputed" or "administered" territory, an aspect of the initial proposal addressed by PointsofNoReturn. The links from "possessions" go to United States Minor Outlying Islands#Islands which does not differentiate among the list of eleven. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]