Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Utsill (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 27 March 2017 (→Memphis Meats: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Utsill, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Why my Talk page looks so crazy

Note, most of my Talk page currently is based on disagreements I've had with a user named Jytdog regarding the content of the Memphis Meats page and related to him thinking I'm a Misplaced Pages advocate for effective altruism, while I think he is unfairly deleting effective altruism Misplaced Pages content and harassing other editors, especially new ones like me. Please reach out if you have questions or concerns. Utsill (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI

The Memphis Meats issue has made it to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking a one way IBAN re Andy Dingley. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Utsill (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Utsill you were unaware of this, but Andy did there is called WP:CANVASS. He should not have done that, and you should not have responded. Please do read CANVASS. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:Canvass. Please don't be condescending. I don't think it was canvassing. I was just involved in the relevant discussion on the Memphis Meats page so it made since to have my input, though of course I can't read minds so I'm not sure. Utsill (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That is 100% canvass letter and spirit. You are the one who said you are new, more than once (diff, diff) and indeed you have 74 edits. There is a lot to learn about how WP works and I am sorry that Andy's grudge against me has interfered wit your learning curve.

Btw most people get drawn to WP because they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives content creation but it also can drive advocacy, which is something that bedevils the community, which is why we have so many essays about it (WP:SPA, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:Civil POV pushing, and more). Beginnings are fragile times - bend a sapling and you get a bent tree. I hope things straighten out for you with time. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As before, I disagree with your assessment of the situation and wish you would stop being condescending and flaming towards new editors. Utsill (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Memphis Meats

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. When you are bold and add new info to a page, and this addition is then reverted, the onus is on you to take it to the talk-page; do not readd the info without consensus. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh...and I see this has just made it to WP:ANI; let's see how this unfolds. Lectonar (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Jytdog deleted existing content and didn't provide policy-based justification. I probably could have handled it better in some way though. Thanks for the input. Utsill (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The ANI is not about Utsill nor even about this article, but rather about the behavior of another editor who has been carrying out WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with regard to me over the past year, and interjected themselves into this article. Utsill as you have noted, you are new here. This kind of thing goes on here. It is unfortunate, but it does. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems like both you and the other editor are flaming/harassing/insulting other editors, so I wouldn't just blame them. (And if I had to blame just one person, you seem like the instigator.) I'd be happy to have discussions with you about the actual application of WP policy to the content of articles, but it doesn't seem like that's how you operate. (Sorry if this isn't the appropriate venue for this comment. I don't know how to log a complaint against another editor in a better way yet.) Utsill (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm frustrated by how you and perhaps a few other editors seem like you're reacting to EA advocacy and the Vipul thing by advocating in the opposite direction, 'fighting fire with fire,' instead of applying WP policy fairly. I realize my opposition to what you're doing seems like advocacy, but it's not because I'd be happy to delete EA content that didn't fit with WP policy. Utsill (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If you look carefully, you will see that in my edit notes and on article Talk pages, I don't discuss other editors. Article space is for discussing article content. ANI and user talk pages are the places to address editor behavior. Most of my fierce comments every where have been about content, not contributor. Bad content is bad content. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to go and gather quotes, but I have seen you inappropriately insulting other editors and their contributions. Utsill (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

If you by "flaming" you mean referring to you as a) new and b) an EA advocate, both are descriptive, not flames. I have described edits as shit, this is true. Don't know who made most of them but they were obviously made by EA advocates. Advocates tend to generate badly sourced or unsourced promotional edits with regard to the object of their advocacy - that is how we know they are advocates. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You're really going to accuse me of edit warring for reverting your inappropriate edits? Okay. We'll see what others think. Utsill (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR block

Hi. You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to (Three revert rule) edit warring. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 18:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Utsill (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not violate WP:3RR. Please provide an explanation for why you think I did so. I reverted twice a few days ago, and twice today. I don't see how I meet any other 3RR criteria. All of these reversions were to enforce WP policy, namely that editors should wait for discussion on the Talk page to resolve before making decisions for the page. This just seems like harassment from Jytdog.

Decline reason:

Jytdog reported you for edit warring, and that's precisely what you did. You technically didn't violate WP:3RR, but that's not a prerequisite for edit warring. Also, if "editors should wait for discussion on the Talk page to resolve before making decisions for the page" (which is not an excuse for edit warring in the first place), then you didn't following your own advice by pushing your preferred content into the page over the objections of multiple editors. It's WP:BRD, not BRRD. Huon (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Utsill (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not violate WP:3RR. Please provide an explanation for why you think I did so. I reverted twice a few days ago, and twice today. I don't see how I meet any other 3RR criteria. All of these reversions were to enforce WP policy, namely that editors should wait for discussion on the Talk page to resolve before making decisions for the page. This just seems like harassment from Jytdog.

Accept reason:

Block lifted by blocking admin. Yamla (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C:, I took a look here and I must admit, I don't see a 3RR violation. Arguably, the user could have been blocked for edit warring (I take no position on this), but I do not see a 3RR violation. The four edits took place over about 90 hours rather than 24 hours. 3RR doesn't guarantee you 3 reverts in 24 hours, of course, but four reverts over 90 hours would normally be allowed or, if not, the block would be placed for edit warring instead of 3RR. I also take no position on whether the revert made the article better; I am solely interested in 3RR here. --Yamla (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The edit warring policy is not a license to revert under three times and you can be blocked even if you don't technically violate 3RR in 24 hours. This editor's intention to force their promotional content into the article is clear. As noted at EWN, the article has been under promotional pressure since it was created by a sock. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There was no 3RR violation, I haphazardly copied text and forgot to modify it, sorry about that. Normally, yes, this would be a no violation, but I was concerned with a double-tap every 2 days. And, as Jytdog notes, also at issue are edits that are contested for being promotional of the article's subject. So, that ups the stakes for me. El_C 19:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

Because I didn't notice the page was protected and because it was already borderline, I have unblocked you. But you are warned not to edit war, and use the talk page. El_C 18:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thanks for taking a look at this. I'll try to avoid these situations in the future. @El C:, @Huon:: I would appreciate a policy-based reason you found my behavior worthy of blocking. Also, I didn't make a decision for the page. I just reverted the decisions made by other editors. In the future, if others are deviating from WP policy and I can fix the issue by reverting, should I not do so if it requires me to revert a page multiple times? What other method can I use to keep people from deviating? Surely not an RfC or anything for such a small issue, right? And where is the relevant policy for knowing what edit warring is in situations like this one?

Also, is there any way I can call for a review of Jytdog's behavior on the effective altruism related pages? He seems to be very aggressive towards new editors whom he feels are "advocates," deleting wide swaths of content inappropriately, and while there's no single obvious "he called me a *****" issue, it seems to not be in the WP spirit of civility, good faith, etc.

(I'm being genuine here. Sorry if it sounds snarky, and thanks for the time you're putting into this.) Utsill (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I know it won't satisfy you, but as admins we are allowed to block for edit warring pretty much at our own discretion—if, for example, we feel there is a lot of tension and that there is edit warring which occurs despite discussion. We can even invoke ignoring all rules and how Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. But frankly, we're all a little edgy over paid editing and otherwise advocacy; of companies unduly benefiting from edits, so again, that too was a factor. El_C 20:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

And the irony is I actually want this company to succeed. I do want its investors happy with it. That is an outcome I favour. But I have a higher guiding principle. El_C 20:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not entirely satisfying, but that's useful information/perspective. Thanks! I agree it makes sense to stick to guiding principles even when the narrow situation appears to call for deviation, but we don't have to get into that big discussion :) Utsill (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

NPA

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Memphis Meats. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

By every standard I can think of, you are the one attacking me. You have repeatedly called me an advocate, insulted me, and turned every discussion about content personal. Please stop leaving messages on my Talk page. This is getting so ridiculous. Utsill (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC) (Note added later: This is bolded for noticeability, not to convey yelling.)

Jytdog, I don't think Utsill's accusation rises to the level of a personal attack. Utsill, I also don't think Jytdog is harassing you—please be wary of casting aspersions. Both of you, please try to focus to the edits not the editors, use the article talk page, and try not to communicate through templates or all-bold sentences. Thanks. El_C 20:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I do feel the all-bold sentence is called for here because I worry that people will read through my Talk page seeing walls of text and just get this impression, "Wow. This editor gets in trouble a lot," so I want my perspective on all of this to be easily noticed. Utsill (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, like with templates, it can sometimes be taken as a form of shouting. Just so you know. El_C 23:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Justice Mission

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Justice Mission. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Memphis Meats

Hey Utsill,

So, I don't know what's going on at Memphis Meats anymore. The RfC is a wacky and crazy thing, with a survey that clearly diverges from the discussion. In a perfect world / how Misplaced Pages is usually run, we would have gotten to the point we might be at now ... and then a third party or RfC would be initiated, but alas Misplaced Pages doesn't always run perfectly.

Nonetheless, here's two basic truths:

1. There's a bloc of users who aren't really affiliated with the article (or engaging in discussion) that are voting among three versions of an article. These three versions are all pretty dated, and unfortunately none of the voters have looked down to examine new information (though that's not really their fault), but it is nonetheless true that they certainly support Version 2.
2. There's four or five users having a discussion in the RfC's discussion session. What we currently have - which took all of us compromising - is listed under current version. Now you listed 4 issues you had with the article; I attempted to address two of them (I fixed the product launch accuracy issue and I hyperlinked in-vitro (while earlier I made sure we have hyperlinks to cultured meat), but I just don't think you're going to get a consensus around the taste/sustainability claims or around the specific products. (A hard maybe to specific products.)

I don't say this to discourage you from making your arguments, but I do want to prepare you that there might be some blowback. You saw that Jytdog responded to your last comment by saying "There's no need to continue this discussion." I think that there's a reasonable chance that a user closing the RfC either doesn't read the discussion or otherwise pretends like the vote isn't a sham, and version 2 gets the go-ahead. So at some point, it might be worth it to cut your losses on those two claims, assuming you prefer the current discussed version to version 2. Totally up to you.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That all seems reasonable to me. I don't have much experience with RfC's. Hopefully if someone does try to close it based on those misleading votes, there will be an avenue for me to contest it. Utsill (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not quite as confident as you that the avenue will be there. At some point Wikipedians generally like to move on from issues (there's a degree of inertia); plus even if the situation is wacky; it's not altogether clear that a majority would / wouldn't support version 2 (compared to the current version ... who knows, but it does seem like version 3 is not getting a lot of support). Additionally, I do think you'll find that the opposition to the taste notes will be pretty across the board (as they are now), which will make your case harder. Nonetheless, obviously continue as you see fit!--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. My understanding is that we need consensus though, not just a majority vote. If it is decided on majority, I don't think I have much hope. If I were forced to give a single option to win against #2, I would do away with the "taste" bit, the "cultured" bit," and the "commercial release" bit, since I think the "sustainability" bit is the most important. Utsill (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)