User talk:DeirdreAnne/Mentorship/Thedagomar

Did I ask about edits?

Anyway, I'm relatively new, but the only one who spoke out and said you need to get a second chance, so I kind of forced myself into this. Addhoc provided me with this link which gave me more background. I can say that I understand their concerns but I believe that there is an obligation to let you try to prove things have changed. Still, it isn't going to be a matter of you handle a couple of WP:WQAs and respond to a half-dozen WP:3Os. I can't even guarantee that if you do everything I recommend they'll allow you back into MedCab. The way I put it to Addhoc after reading the above and some of your former persona's work was that there is a sort of informal community ban against you being involved in WP:DR. So here are some thoughts:

1. I think you should write up a narrative of what your old persona did and why that was wrong - partly for my benefit but mostly for yours. Ideally you would include diffs in it and link it to your main userpage, but these are just ideas at this point.

2. I think it would be best for you to participate with me in some non-mediation DR, such as WQA, as a starter.

3. I think you should discuss any disputes you get in with me immediately.

4. I could care less about your non-controversial editing - at least that's what I think at this point.

Comments?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I will do so shortly.

2. Despite never hearing about WQAs, I am willing to participate in it. 3. I have not been in any disputes for almost 11 months and plan not to. All those comments are a year old.

Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

General questions about character and just general questions

I have a list of questions for you; don't take these like I'm trying to be the inquisition or anything, some are just curiosity, some are issues I could see other asking about and I'd just like to know what your answers are - or get you to think about them anyway:

1. Why did you move User:Geo.plrd to your new userpage? Particularly if you were in some way ashamed of what you had done as that username.

2. For the same reason, why do you now pipe your username to your old username? For all this, why aren't you just using the old account?

3. What was the last straw that caused you to leave before?

4. . . . there will be more tomorrow . . . --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Questioning is good ;D.

1. There was a incident a few months ago where (Geo.plrd) I was mistakenly believed to be a stalker, because I mentioned return under another persona and similarities to past conduct. Also, I realized that it would morally untenable for me to go back to MedCab without disclosing who I really am.

2. i now redirect to allow people to find me if they are looking through old posts. See three for reasoning behind not using the old account.

3. I left a lot of bad blood as Geo.plrd. If i were to use that account, people would automatically assume that I am trying to be a "wannabe wiki tyrant". For example with Arbcab, I tried three times to start community discussion on my proposal and was working on a prototype. Right off the bat, the prototype was deleted.

As TheDagomar, I have accumulated several awards and have a 50% mainspace ratio. People do not approach things that I do with the "egotistical little shit" mindset. By not having this, I am allowed to show that I have changed. Geoff Plourde (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thought of some more:

4. What are these for User:Thedagomar/medcab?

5. Did you complete these assessments: User_talk:Thedagomar#GA_Review? Can you show me where?

...<yawn>...tomorrow . . .--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Former Coordinator Sebastian was having me do a study to figure out a success rate for medcab. I stopped when he resigned. The assessments were completed. If you look at the talk pages, you can see that they hold GA status. Geoff Plourde (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Were these suggested by him under your old account or your new one? Can you provide me with the discussions? Why did you stop?

I would like to discuss specific mediations and other DRs with you outside of the DR areas. That probably means further subpages. There are two ways of thinking about this, 1) discussing current DRs might be most helpful as we could discuss without knowing the final outcome; however, 2) I had a problem once in WP:WQA when one of the parties attacked me and then brought in my own analysis to support his or her position. What do you think? A) do you think this would be fruitful, B) Do you think we should discuss old cases or ongoing cases?

Regardless of which ones we discuss, I would like you to take on WP:3O's regularly. Tell me which one's you're jumping into. Obviously, there is no requirement at 3O for you to remain neutral, but I think it would be particularly good for you to look for cases that interest you but in which you think you can take the middle ground. From there we'll move to WP:WQA at some point, but you could certainly take a look at WQA from time to time and see what the issues there are, that gets contentious sometimes.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the links to the MedCab project are somewheres in the talk archives. I stopped because I technically was no longer officially commissioned. I will look into 3O. I think we should discuss a mix of cases, because of the benefits of each type. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] here is a link to a 3O I just left an opinion at. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you forgot to remove the listing at WP:3O, check that.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Wasn't sure about that. Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Human rights in Israel#Human shields and Talk:Human rights in Israel#2006 Lebanon war.

I responded to this 3O. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Re the first one: I don't understand your fair use argument. There is nothing that prohibits the commercial use of anything on wikipedia except non-free things, which is one of the reasons that the use of non-free material is so restricted.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This image is non free. Its fair use because we derive no commercial benefit and are using it for non profit educational purposes. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess they're sort of the same one aren't they? Were those listed as two separate 3Os?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes they were listed as a package deal. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I returned to this page and think that I have helped bring the parties to a consensus. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, now look at some other things

• I noticed, very good! I think WP:3O is one of the most effective WP:DR methods available. I have seen it work many times. I think you should continue to involve yourself in 3Os. Take a look at WP:WQA but don't jump right in. I made that mistake. There you will find that many of the participants are trying to get the upper hand, hoping for a decision in their favor (the same thing happens at WP:MEDCAB but the mediators seem to have a better handle on it. Review the purposes and functioning of WP:WQA and WP:MEDCAB and tell me what you think the major differences are. Also, take a look at a broad sampling of the WQA discussions and tell me what you think about them. Link to specific discussions, or even diffs (unfortunately, the archiving method doesn't lend itself to long term retrieval last I checked), but I'll look at them in the near future. At this point stick with 3O's for actually getting involved and continue to note here which ones you're involved in so we can keep track and I can see how things are going. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at WQA, and It has its issues. Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to let me know about things like this

I just noticed this: Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Helping_out, although I know very little about Bot approvals, this is so similar to the response you got at MedCab that you probably ought to discuss these things with me. I can try to help out if we discuss these matters in advance. I could even open things up by suggesting to people that you help out as part of your "rehab".--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. No problem. Expect significant opposition from User:Daniel though. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Too right. Daniel (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, he has every right to. I just want to know what you're doing if we're going to make this work. From the discussion, it looked as if there were some things you could do, particularly taking part in discussions. Are you still participating in 3O's? What else have you been doing? Do you have any questions?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Doug, you really should be aware that it continues. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, Daniel, thank you. What's your explanation Geoff?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Geoff has decided to leave again [2] - oh well, can't say I didn't try. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was investigating proposing something the proper route, through discussion. Since I returned, Daniel has not assumed good faith at all. If you look at the history of the page he continues to bring up, you will notice at least two instances, the first where I attempted to refute some erroneous points, and the second where I was going to link to a partial refutation. Both times my efforts have been reverted. When I attempted to help out at Bot Approvals where they had a backlog, Daniel automatically assumed I was angling for membership. In addition, i find it highly peculiar that someone would chop my comments to this out and post them with a link to that page.

Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I stopped assuming good faith after the third Mediation Committee nomination; at that point, there was sufficient evidence for me to stop doing so. Daniel (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop beating on a dead horse. Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. Daniel (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What is done is done. Stop dealing in the distant past. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling and stalking for responses. seicer | talk | contribs 14:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent.)

I fail to see how this is disrupting the useability of Wikipedia.. I have said nothing about his contributions to Wikipedia. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Doug, thank you for your time. You were willing to give me a chance when no one else would. I feel that you helped me become a little better as a person and partially brought me to realize I am in the wrong sandbox. if i can repay the favor, email me. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)