User talk:Sdirrim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Please check my user comments page...

I replied to your message. Like I say there, don't be shy, just do it. Don't wait for votes... wikipedia does not work by voting... Dndn1011 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree. Wikipedia operates on the idea of consensus, otherwise meaningless squabbling ensues. However, you are right that occasionally one must take charge of a situation. Sdirrim 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, I know you are fairly new here, so you probably have not familiarised yourself with policy and guideline. However the documentation on wikipedia specifically states that disputes are not resolved by vote. SO I so once again, please do not wait. Just start. It is not as if anyone has any way of assessing how you will do until you do something. I stepped in because it was needed, and I actually achieved some important breakthroughs. Currently the arguments have pretty much died down and the reason for this is because Danko has stopped his disruption. You have offered to mediate, I have no reason to take objection to that and I agree precisely because I know I may be percieved as biased (even though I am not). How will we know when all votes are counted? Use common sense (I mean that nicely). Right now no-one is mediating or prgoressing the article, because I stopped when you offered to mediate. Please start the work before the current momentum is lost. If you do not, I will simply carry on what I was doing before, because we should not wait around. Concensus is not the same as voting. Voting has no place in wikipedia. This is why my comment on "voting myself chairman" was a light hearted joke. I just stepped into a role that no-one else was taking. Please take the role if you wish to, and see how it goes. I am quite happy to offer help if you need it. Dndn1011 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Sdirrim, I agree to your mediation, however, since Dndn1011 has been making good progress towards clarifying what is claimed and what is OR, I would suggest we all continue on that process, and stop contributions from any editor that refuses to agree to the mediation. I would also suggest that you take a more stern stance against individuals that constantly violate Wiki policies, otherwise, I'm afraid the process will once again descend into chaos. Best regards. -- Prof. Afshar 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afshar experiment

This case is proving very contentious and difficult. It may not be amenable to informal mediation. You may want to consider closing the case and referring the parties to other forms of dispute resolution. --Ideogram 18:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, this is not an easy case. It is very easy in the efforts to resolve it to get in all kinds of difficulty and even end up being accused of bias, for taking a hard line with a troublemaker (I am assessing Danko's behavior, not the person). If you wish I will carry on with where I left off, as I have a plan. No-one else seems to have one. I started executing the plan by bringing Afshar back in to help clarify exactly what his claims are. Then it is a case of going through the article looking at what each side has to say about it and then coming to a concensus on each point, *from a firm understanding of what we are actually talking about*. It is this last point that has been cause for all the arguing, in my opinion.

There is a long history to this, Danko's behavoir has been a long running problem, but in fact progress has been made, even between myself and Mr. Price. It is easy to look at recent events and misunderstand what is going on, or underestimate the progress that has been made. We are actually not that far off from fixing things, at least if we ignore Danko. I am not afraid of devoting some more time to this, so if you are amenable, I will continue. Dndn1011 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are having trouble finding enough time, I can ask for a co-mediator. Unfortunately we are very short of manpower right now and I cannot predict how long it will take to find one. --Ideogram 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your concern, but I can manage. I am currently accepted as a neutral mediator supported by almost all parties involved, and I think that progress is being made. I don't think it would be a good idea to introduce or re-introduce another mediator who may not be accepted or viewed as neutral. I know that I am frequently absent, as I will be until Monday, but I believe that things will not spill out of control. At some point we should be able to trust contribtors. Sdirrim 19:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edist by Jreferee

Jreferee has made much more extensive edits today than the one line you just reverted. Please take a look at the history and revert the page back to the version prior to his undiscussed edits. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Wrong method. It has been changed to Art Carlson's version. Sdirrim 17:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please reasd talk page (copied from here)

Jreferee, if you plan to edit the Afshar experiment article, please read the talk page and refrain from making changes. I am currently mediating a conflict in this article. Thank you! Sdirrim 17:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed most of the references to living person Afshar in the article to resolve a request about the article on the BLPN page. Please feel free to revert any of my changes should that aid your mediation. -- Jreferee 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is mostly that until conflict resolution is over, changes will just worsen the conflict between editors. Thank you for trying to help, though. Sdirrim 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that conflict resolution was going on when I made the changes, but do appreciate the information. I closed the Afshar experiment BLPN matter after I made the changes so that BLPN post should no longer draw others to the article. It might help others who subsequently view the article if a template is created/posted at the top of the article to indicate that conflict resolution/mediation is in progress and editors should review the procedures on the article talk page before making changes to the article. Best of luck. -- Jreferee 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation for Bosnian Mujahideen

I've requested page protection so that it's easier for others to contribute. I hope you don't mind. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, I appreciate your mediation in this dispute. I requested Mediation to try to stop User:The Dragon of Bosnia and User:Grandy Grandy's repeated deletion of the article on the grounds that it was WP:POV and WP:OR. User:The Dragon of Bosnia has now presented his claims and I have given my replies to them. I see that you have now suggested further statements, however I can't see that either of us has any more arguments. Unless User:The Dragon of Bosnia comes with new claims I will not be making any new replies. Shouldn't these claims, counterclaims and rebuttals be sufficient for an opinion/decision in the Mediation?Osli73 (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, any progress towards a 'solution'? I would like to remind you that the reason I nominatd this article for mediation was to protect it from what I felt was outright vandalism by The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy. As I stated above, I can't see that either parties of us have any new claims/counterclaims so the material available should, in my opinion, be sufficient for a comment as to whether the article is warranted, uses sufficient and proper sources and is written in a NPOV as I believed such an opinion would stop further vandalism of the article.Osli73 (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, any closer to a decision? I respect that your time is limited but I would like to see some kind of closure of the topic. Please note that the content of this article and the dispute is linked to the article 7th Muslim Brigade.Osli73 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, any closer to a decision? I requested this mediation to stop The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy deletion/vandalism of the article and links to it. I accept that protection of the article is reasonable as long as the mediation is in progress. However, it is now some time since the mediation began, I have put forth my claims and I believe that The Dragon of Bosnia has presented his. I would very much appreciate some kind of decision/recommendation on your part. My wish is for The Dragon of Bosnia to be recommended to stop deleting the article and/or its contents. Sincere regardsOsli73 (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, I realize we are all busy but it feels as if this mediation is taking undue long time. By now the claims, counterclaims and replies have been presented and should be known. When do you expect to have some type of suggestion?Osli73 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sdirrim, are you still working on this mediation? Is ther some kind of time table for completing it?Osli73 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediation

Due to the participants seeking a more active mediation of their dispute, I have volunteered on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-04 Bosnian Mujahideen. I notice you haven't been on in a few weeks. I hope everything is well with you and that your holidays were pleasant. Vassyana (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)