Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrFleischman (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 31 July 2015 (→see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#false_allegations_of_edit_warring_.2F_editing_against_consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Fyi

Stoking the fires of battle.

Yes, I agree. It was getting under my skin and I let it. What really gets me annoyed is continually defining the obvious. Things like; "The Chicago Tribune, a US newspaper based in Chicago." or "appeared on Frontline (U.S. TV series), a documentary series airing on PBS the US public television network." It turns what should just be a ref or link into a verbose sentence. The whole reason to wikilink is to take care of those sorts of things. I shouldn't let it bother me, eventually everything gets improved. Ah, well. Thanks for the note. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you. To be honest, and weirdly enough, I find him to be more tolerable when edit warring than when "discussing" in the talk namespace. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Me too. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that the editor was blocked for socking. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

?? Who? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry there were two editors doing that. One was Spearmind. He's been blocked for two weeks. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, the disruption is getting out of hand at the AFP article. Please know that if you take this to the boards I'd support you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Meitiv family for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meitiv family is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Meitiv family 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. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

comment about ani

about your comment here. Good to hear the feedback that it was too ax-grindy sounding. That was helpful. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that constructively. Mainly it was way too long. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

i can respond to the length thing, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

ok. there is a long answer that deals with bigger stuff, and a short answer. the short answer, is that it was primarily a long-term POV pushing case, and in my view if that is what you bring, you have to really prove it. it would be too easy to cherry-pick a few diffs and make a claim.. and that would not be fair. i had my doubts about bringing it to ANI at that length, but that is length it needed to be- ethically. i was not at all surprised it was closed with no action and expected it. (not what i hoped for, but i expected it) and i had to go to ANI first anyway... you cannot jump right to Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A number of responses come to mind but I'll boil them down to two:

• If you really had to include that much info, which I'm not so sure about, you could have made extensive use of {{collapse}}, which would have made your complaint much more approachable. For example, you could have listed all of the conduct policies and guidelines you believed Doors22 violated and then had a collapsed summary of diffs for each one.
• If POV pushing was the thrust of your complaint, then I think RFC/U is the more appropriate forum than ANI/Arbcom. Obviously there are a lot of (non-admin) editors who agreed with you, so I'd think your chances of prevailing at RFC/U would be quite high. It's not too late to go that route.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh... er... never mind about RFC/U. I didn't realize it was shut down. A shame. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

right. that is a nice suggestion about collapse, btw. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax has replied to you on his Talk page, and i'll note, Jusdafax, that if you have anything you'd like to say to me, my talk page is open to you. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Institute for Justice Litigation Section

Hey Doc,

This has dragged on for a while. Why don't we resolve this? Do you have a preferred method to get more involvement in the question? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey -- at this talk page, you suggest that I tweak the RfI. I don't think I'm the person to describe the alternative to leaving the sections as-is. If you want to propose a full set of new section headings, I think you should do that. Please also include if we should leave in the information on how IJ categorizes its own cases (currently in the intro), and if so, how we should reconcile the two. (Do we change what the reference says? Do we include the organization's wording in the reference, but explain that the neutral terms are ___?) But before you get started, please think about this one more time. Every one of the categories you suggest will be debatable, and will be debated. If we refuse to group cases the way that the subject of this article groups the cases, then we will need more than 4 ... probably more than a dozen.

Instead, why don't we just make it as clear as possible that the grouping, and the terms involved, are IJ's terms and leave it at that? That is accurate, factual, referenced ... all the stuff that Misplaced Pages is about.

Finally, what you are doing below does look to me like canvassing. I'm sorry, but it does look that way to me. Thanks. James Cage (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

James Cage, I want you to know that I had no problem with how you presented the RfC. It's only a technical matter to explain the scope of the dispute as some people tend to take these things very literally. I propose changing "This has triggered an NPOV dispute." to How the cases are categorized, and the names of the categories, has triggered an NPOV dispute." How's that? If you're ok with that, could you please make the change yourself? I don't want anyone to think I've coopted or changed the scope of the RfC without your permission.

As for canvassing, there was absolutely nothing canvassing or canvassing-like about any of my interactions. I happened to be editing a closely related topic (totally by coincidence), and two disputants asked me for help. I offered my help, and in exchange I invited them to weigh in on our dispute. At the time, I knew nothing of their ideologies or editing approaches beyond what I read at Talk:Thomas More Law Center#Notes on further case additions. As it turns out, another dispute on that talk page between the same editors involved a surprisingly similar issue to ours, but I hadn't read that dispute and in any case, I invited both editors to participate. I really have done nothing outside of our RfC with the intention of influencing the outcome of the RfC in any particular way.

Finally, regarding your final question, conspicuously absent from your list of "all the stuff that Misplaced Pages is about" is neutrality. I take neutrality seriously and I don't think we meet our responsibility by adding what I see as nothing more than a disclaimer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the RfC needs to describe in detail the alternative to the existing categories. "Changing the categories" is not enough - we should list the new categories. Otherwise, it's like asking "Would you prefer to vote for Joe Smith, or would you prefer to vote for any Democrat?" It's a false choice, because without a clear explanation of what the alternative is, the editors can't make an informed decision. I think that's what LavaBaron was saying.

Regarding canvassing, two editors came to your page to thank you and ask for a favor. They both want something from you. You suggested that they return that favor by commenting on the RfC. I don't want to exclude them from the discussion, and I'm not going to prejudice the discussion by bringing this up there. I respect them, I respect you. I don't even think you were intentionally canvassing. But you are literally talking about exchanging favors. Yes, I absolutely think that's canvassing. Once the IJ discussion is complete, I suggest we get some neutral eyes to look at this, and advise us both.

Regarding neutrality, I also take that seriously. I think that facts are inherently neutral, and it is a simple fact that these are the categories that IJ uses. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems LavaBaron has beaten us to the punch. :-) I would have been fine with an RfC asking whether the existing categorization scheme was neutral or non-neutral, but this is fine as well. (Somehow RfCs I'm involved in always end up getting bogged down in procedural distractions. That's not a knock on your choice of DR, more of a Murphy's Law observation.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As for the canvassing claim, the favor NatGertler and Cghake asked for was for me to participate more on that page. The favor I asked them for was to participate in our RfC. No more, no less. If you want to ask for guidance on whether this is an acceptable practice, by all means do so since I've done similar things before and I certainly wouldn't want to break the rules. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in what others would say. I asked the question here - https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Is_this_canvassing.3F. I just noticed that I used "him" to refer to you - no non-neutrality intended! Thanks - James James Cage (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong. I apologize. James Cage (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I know you raised the concern in good faith and in hindsight I understand the basis for it. The "return the favor" language might have been read to imply I was asking for someone to agree with me, nudge nudge wink wink, though that was not at all my intention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Doc - I have made the changes to the article headings, per the discussion. I made a slight modification to "education reform" to include "school vouchers" in the section heading and a link to the Misplaced Pages article on "school choice" in the text - see discussion on talk page. Please take a look, and if you feel that that these changes address your original concerns, remove the neutrality dispute flag. Thanks, James Cage (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thomas More Law Center

Thank you for your recent involvement on the Thomas More Law Center page. May I request that you keep a hand in that page? I hate to try to further burden an active editor, but at this point, except for the addition by that IP user that apparently brought you there, the page is basically in the hands of two editors, and it isn't one of those two cases where the two are dancing happily through the daisies of Misplaced Pages editing. Additionally, I'm in a period where my off-wiki life is particularly full, and I'm not able to give the article the full attention that it calls for. Experienced hands could serve the article well. Your further involvement would be useful... and, in any case, your efforts to date are appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank you as well. The page really does need more hands than just one or two. But, really, the only way to make it better is to work on it and hope more hands take an interest in it. Cghake (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

NatGertler and Cghake, thanks for the messages. I myself have limited bandwidth these days, so I can't promise any significant article space editing, but I'm also sympathetic to your requests as I have similar issues on other articles from time to time. Accordingly, I will make myself available to serve as a third opinion on significant talk page disputes. I have subject matter expertise in both law and American conservatism so I suspect I'd be preferable to WP:3O. I won't be watching the page so please ping me or leave me a message to request my participation.

If either of you are willing to return the favor, there is an RfC over at Talk:Institute for Justice that may be of interest to you. IJ is kind of the libertarian equivalent of the TMLC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop templating my Talk page

If you are not going to discuss, stay off my Talk page. Is that clear? After another editor harassed me like you are with gratuitous templating I took it to an admin noticeboard and that put a stop to it. Is that what's necessary here? If you have the time to harass other editors like this, you have the time to address the points they raise on article Talk pages, something you have been refusing to do. I am also going to ask you why you are not waiting for another editor to agree with you that there is a BLP issue before you cry BLP and revert another editor if not editing without a clear consensus in support for your editing is so critical--Brian Dell (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think my templating of you is anything close to harassment, as I've only warned you about edit warring when you've actually been edit warring. Because you've edit warred repeatedly, I've warned you repeatedly. It's as simple as that. In any case, I will stop per your request. And, I'm not waiting for another editor to agree with me on BLP because I'm simply following our BLP policy, which says that BLP violations should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion. I think you're smart enough and experienced enough to understand these rules, in addition to WP:EP and especially WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, which perhaps you haven't read yet? Another item you might want to review is WP:ES#What to avoid in edit summaries. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Re your edit warring charge, I've been more engaged on the article Talk page than you have. Either put up and accuse me of edit warring on an admin board or shut up. You don't consider your behaviour harassment, well, in an identical case it was found to be harassment and a week long ban was applied. You cannot hide your edit warring behind BLP when nobody has backed up your claim that there is a BLP violation. This is NOT a case where the material is unsourced. I think you are smart enough and experienced enough to understand that BLP is not some blank cheque that you can abuse by consider yourself unbound by the edit warring prohibitions that apply to the rest of us. I also think you know full well that your templating of my Talk page does not fix any problem and simply serves to harass and aggravate another editor. If you actually read WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM yourself as opposed to instructing others to do so, you would be using a scalpel instead of sledgehammer that just obliterates everything I write.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you always so angry? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

On my Talk page an admin says "I appreciate your efforts at peacemaking" and immediately below that is in invitation from another editor to stand for ArbCom. When you appear on my Talkpage to warn me that my "edits may constitute vandalism" do you really truly believe that what you are claiming is helping the situation? If you had the capacity or perhaps it's just willingness to place yourself in another editor's shoes I think it would be obvious that this just serves to pick a fight. When you made the "nutcases" remark it was after I wrote "You may again complain that I'm just trying to embarrass you by pointing out your flip-flops. Embarrassing you doesn't do anything for me. Avoiding having my time wasted is what does something for me, and when you argue about something for paragraphs and paragraphs and then, a couple months later, concede the point that we shouldn't be pushing any particular explanation for why Snowden is in Russia as opposed to just noting that he's there, I have to ask myself what else I could have been doing besides having an extended back-and-forth with you that ends with you calling for the same thing I've been calling for since the beginning." Now, lo and behold, this month you flip flopped again. It wasn't a solution to just note that Snowden is in Russia, at least not anymore. Maybe you just can't see how this sort of thing frustrates the resolution of issues. You've got your source and that's all you need, but if on my side I've a got a Reuters story, well, it suddenly becomes more complicated. Either it's complicated for both of us or for neither. We're going around circles. Now and then you will say something like "I do hope that we can work together". That's nice, but that's not what's needed, what's needed is effort and ability to appreciate what would break the cycle and what would aggravate it.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Tell me what aggravates the cycle. Changing my mind about something? Is that forbidden? What did I flip flop on this month? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your pretending aggravates the cycle. Like you just pretending now I didn't already point my finger at some of what needs to be addressed. It looks to me like you are less interested in realizing any particular result than in simply pushing back on other editor(s). I think you knew that your repeating templating of my Talk page was not going to help realize any particular negotiated result. It's the hypocrisy that I think is offside the community's unwritten rules. Just to take but one example, you revert Trödel, claiming BLP, yet no one else has claimed a BLP issue. Should I revert based on an argument no one else has made, however, you would immediately claim that I'm editing without consensus. You are also repeatedly inconsistent with respect to what constitutes RS. An argument with this sort of person is unresolvable, because after a particular point has been recognized and settled, it can be unrecognized (by you). It's simply not fair play.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to push this further, I suggest you pursue dispute resolution because I'm not interested in responding to your repeated angry accusations of bad faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Prove my point then that you are not, in fact, willing to actually engage and resolve issues. I'll just remind you that trying to muscle your way into getting what you want is going to end up sooner or later proving a problem with editors besides just myself.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For cooperation with James Cage on resolving an edit dispute on Institute for Justice. LavaBaron (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Axact

There is no source for that claim- please check all sources on Axact and can you share what source confirms Axact's software revenues and products ? Engine Gone Loco (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Axact#Software company. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#false_allegations_of_edit_warring_.2F_editing_against_consensus

When all you have to say in reply to my observations about the state of consensus is that you "disagree," it looks to me like you've declined to continue to engage. You continue to refuse to given Trappedinburnley and FoCuSandLeArN even that much of a reply. I think going to the BLP noticeboard helped resolve the issue in that independent opinion was unanimous that the Sunday Times may be cited, and by independent I mean excluding Petrarchan who has been a party to almost every dispute concerning the page since it was created. I believe you have twisted Nomoskedasticity's view if you think Nomoskedasticity agrees with you concerning no citing of the Sunday Times even with attribution. Given that you haven't declined to continue to revert, I see little prospect that any further progress will be made here towards the resolving the issue short of soliciting admin involvement. Admins do not generally adjudicate content disputes, but I think the content dispute may be indirectly addressed by having your repeated accusation that that I am edit warring and editing against consensus truth tested.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that you declined to substantiate your accusations of edit warring in the forum for dealing with such accusations is presumptive evidence that your accusations were made in bad faith. I would think that not only would you welcome being held accountable for your accusations were they made in good faith, you would be encouraging admin attention in order to put a stop to the edit warring instead of trying to wave such attention away. If your allegations are being made in good faith then prove it by asking a third party to review your allegations. You can start with an admin who agrees with you that it is entirely unreasonable and unsportsmanlike of me to expect you to "respond point-for-point" to me. As for your "edit wars can be slow-moving" line, there certainly hasn't been anything slow about the pace at which you have been reverting others such that I trust you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to complain that someone was as fast to revert as you are.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think there is a consensus in your favor, the appropriate way to resolve the dispute is to go to WP:ANRFC as I already suggested. Anything else is disruptive at this point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What's disruptive is 1) your attempt to wave off the admin intervention I solicited 2) misrepresenting the consensus by reverting another editor and then refusing to acknowledge that editor as wanting to include the material you deleted 3) choosing to edit war (with repeated wholesale deletions of the exact same text with the exact same edit summary) instead of responding to my Talk page argument, complaining that it's unreasonable to be expected to "respond point-for-point" 4) refusing to respond to other editors who disagree with you 5) continuing to claim a BLP violation despite the fact that the matter was already raised on the BLP noticeboard and you couldn't get consensus support for that contention despite the fact you were free to present only one side of the argument.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not constructive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I want it on record here that I hereby challenge you to raise this on the RS noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war. And include your "BLP violation" claim if you are not going to drop it so it can be assessed by the community. In order to help you make the best argument you can, I'm going to tip you off with a possible line of counterargument, so you can tailor now what you post in anticipation of it:
If this is a good faith objection to the reliability of the messenger as opposed to the message, then why don't you object to citing the New York Times as "a BLP violation" when the NYT cited anonymous officials to report that Snowden was enabling ISIS? Unlike the Sunday Times, the NYT didn't have the benefit of having the BBC back it up by independently contacting its own anonymous officials (BBC sources) and getting the same story! It's not a BLP violation to suggest someone enabled ISIS but it is to suggest someone enabled Russian intelligence? Greenwald attacked the NYT just like he attacked the Sunday Times (and just like he attacked Reuters and Kommersant, in the later case with subsequent evidence contradicting Greenwald's "fabrication" charge). As for your quotefarm, I think you are passing off a lot of opinion pieces by individuals as investigative reporting that contradicted the Sunday Times. I would like to note here that the edit which DrFleischman has been edit warring over to delete is "British government officials briefing anonymously claimed that..." *What follows this attributed "claimed that" does not have to be verified, it's the whole sentence to which verifiability applies.*--Brian Dell (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This extended dispute (citing the Sunday Times) kicked off with you deleting material added by Trödel's without giving Trödel a Talk page explanation. You subsequently refused to acknowledge Trödel when making your claims about the state of the consensus, yet as of today an admin has has come in and added material that is remarkably similar in theme and intention to Trödel's edit. The original edit has most certainly been improved upon (which I'll grant does not always happen with every admin move like this), but it seems to me that an inordinate amount of WIkipedian resources were consumed in this affair relative to the difference between Trödel's edit and what we have now. I think there's more to be reflected upon here than just that you've managed to come out of this with your clean edit warring block log intact.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, reflect away. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)