User talk:DrFleischman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

see Wikipedia: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)

If you think the party that needs to reflect on what all his edit warring accomplished is someone other than yourself, it looks to me like you are resolved to repeat your disruptive behaviour in the future even if it leads to the same result. I've tried to make escalation a last resort, as it's one thing to waste my time and another thing to waste the time of the rest of the community as well. But it appears that admin action is the only thing you respect. A productive and collaborative citizen does not deem himself entitled to do anything and everything that formal enforcement does not punish him for. It should not be necessary for an admin to instruct you as to what either policy or community opinion is.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I consider your prolonged discussion of this subject to be harassment. You are banned from my talk page for the month of August 2015. I will seek administrative sanctions if you post any comments here this month aside from mandatory notifications. The userspace ban will automatically expire at the end of the month. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC, I'm considering filing this ANI

I'm considering posting this ANI relating to the conduct of HughD. As I link to some of your posts I would be interested in your views. [[1]] Springee (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I support you. This is a good start but it needs quite a bit more work. Here are some miscellaneous thoughts:

• Way too long. You need to cut this down by at least 2/3. Length is your enemy because it causes those tired admin eyes to glaze over. Use bullets, bolding, and {{collapse}} to keep it short and draw attention to the most important points.
• Don't focus so exclusively on the RfC. That makes it easy to explain away as an isolated incident. His problem go far beyond the RfC. You'll find the same problematic behavior at other related articles.
• Cut the stuff about past history. Admins don't care. They want to know about recent problems. That means June at the earliest. Unless you can show a continuous, ongoing pattern.
• Start with a short sentence summarizing the problem and why the community should care. Then go straight into the policies and guidelines that have been breached.
• How did Hugh's behavior cause AFP to be subject to discretionary sanctions?
• Don't refer to disruptive editing without explaining the specific behavioral problems. Review the signs. Focus on tendentiousness and especially rejection or ignoring of community input (inability to listen--admins love that one). For the latter, you should find lots of ammo by going through his user talk page history and reviewing the deleted posts.
• Diffs for everything. Don't link to discussions. Admins don't want to click through to discussions.
• You should feature WP:OWN, which is a big part of his problem. Include here his constant thanking for every single edit and talk page comment he agrees with. Maybe you haven't experienced this. But it was literally. every. single. one. until I finally recently demanded that he stop.
• WP:BATTLEGROUND is good, definitely applicable.
• You might find something in WP:GAME.
• You can't simply refer to obnoxiousness in generalities and provide a diff (e.g. "A general flavor ... can be seen in the comments here"). You have to actually describe his obnoxiousness and how the policy or guidelines applies. Use quotes if necessary.

Good luck! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee, you might draw some inspiration from this.

Thanks for the input. The ANI is located here [[2]] Springee (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Tea

Hah! I like tea. I'll going out to lunch but will be back to discuss my concern further this afternoon. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

So, I'm back. There are two refs at the article one (in passing in an obit) refers to conservative as a conservative version of the Council on Foundations. The other refers to the org as "politically conservative" but again is a passing ref to this organization. I note that nothing in our article about the Council on Foundations suggests that it is liberal. I see no indications that either organization is a "political organization", and find the refs weak support for calling a non-profit "politically conservative". Hence my "weak tea" edit summary. I'll discuss this on the article talk page of course, but I wanted to explain my edit in some detail here first. It wasn't a criticism of your edits, just my thoughts on the refs. I hope all is well with you. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, please transclude to article talk and I'll respond there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for casting aspersions. I guess I was irritated that Capitalismojo reverted with no discussion other than to tell me I responded in the wrong place. But I still think my edit, though minor, is still valid, given ALEC's penchant for being caught out at less than ethical behavior. But I shouldn't have lashed out. Sorry. Gil gosseyn (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, as Capitalismojo and I are entitled to ours. There is no obligation to discuss before an initial revert; the bold-revert-discuss cycle is widely accepted here. If you wish to retract portions of your comment on the article talk page you can do so by using strikethroughs using s tags, for example

<s>text you want to strike</s>

produces text you want to strike. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Trump University as 2016 primary topic

Could you further explain why this should not be a part of the article? Because, it seems obvious to me that these events should be. If it is citations; they will be added. --Wikipietime (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Would like some further explanation on your removal of contributions, before undoing or formally contesting. Eliminating cited content as you have done seems, to me, biased. I would like other editors to weigh in on the matter. As mentioned on your page, I do suspect a bit of bias. There have been several contributors to the article with worthy credentials and the contribution was left intact. This issue, Trump University, is a fast moving one and placing factual, citable content for the wikipedia encyclopedia is valid. You seem to want to supress the record as being recorded in citable media channels over minor incidentals or deficiencies. Respectfully, I undid your undo and would hope to see some others weigh in. Wikipietime (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wikipietime. I do not pretend I have no bias; everyone here does. However I do try to follow all policies and guidelines, and generally when I delete content it is to enforce them. Of course, different deletions are to enforce different rules. However every deletion I've done is accompanied by an edit summary that explains in at least a bit of detail why I did it. I urge you to review those edit summaries. Please remember that just because content is factual and citable does not necessarily make it fit for inclusion in any particular article, or in Wikipedia at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipietime, I'd like to add something else. One of the basic premises of our editing policy is that everyone should make an effort to assume good faith. This means, for example, please try to avoid accusing your fellow editors of vandalism (or suppression) unless the evidence is compelling. If you look through the edit history of Trump University you'll see that I've tried to explain all of my edits in their summaries. Deletion does not equal vandalism. None of these edits have anything to do with vandalism (except deleting vandalism, of course). Please try harder to engage in friendly, substantive discussion without antagonizing the rest of the community. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Backing away and will watch to see how the article evolves. Some folks in this world are sticklers of formality and protocol; myself, I like to through stuff on the wall and see what sticks. If a person just arrived to this planet and read the article as it now is, they would be clueless of what is actually transpiring by the hour. It has one sentence on the events of the past several weeks and months. The idea that someone will go back and fill in these morbid, messy details at a later date is just not realistic. Discouraged and Respectfully--Wikipietime (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well at least being called a "stickler of formality and protocol" is better than being called a vandal. In fact, following our policies and guidelines isn't about formality and protocol; it's about abiding by the consensus views of the community. In any case, if you want a place to read about the events of the past several weeks and months, Wikipedia has generally never been a good option. You're much better off reading a magazine like Time or The Economist. I personally like the New York Times' Week in Review. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia that almost nobody can successfully edit.

Yes, Joel, I am already well of things like the following article: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html [partial quote follows]

Extended content

"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit” is at risk of becoming, in computer scientist Aaron Halfaker’s words, “the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semiautomated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” An entrenched, stubborn elite of old-timers, a high bar to entry, and a persistent 90/10 gender gap among editors all point to the possibility that Wikipedia is going adrift. Because Wikipedia is so unprecedented, I cut it a lot of slack, but precisely for that reason, it faces unanticipated dangers and no easy solution. I recently delved into the wild and wooly realm of Wikipedia editing, which helped me appreciate just how unique and byzantine its environment is. A controversial edit of a page attributed views to me I would never hold, and when I tried to correct the misinformation, several recalcitrant editors attacked me until Wales himself stepped in and saner editors prevailed and fixed the error. (To them, I am grateful.) As it turned out, I’d run into a couple of what one Wikipedia administrator terms “The Unblockables,” a class of abrasive editors who can get away with murder because theyhave enough of a fan club within Wikipedia, so any complaint made against them would be met with hostility and opprobrium. My experience was probably worse than most, but Wikipedia remains daunting to a newcomer. Unlike pretty much every other website of note, Wikipedia really is an experiment in controlled anarchy, and its strengths and weaknesses stem largely from the fact that there is no central authority with its hand on the tiller. Every editor is in theory on a par with every other one, with only about 1,400 “administrators” with the power to sanction and block editors and an overbooked Arbitration Committee for extreme cases of discord. The current governance of Wikipedia is a legalistic anarchy, in which complicated rules, frequently invoked only through arcane acronyms like BLP, AGF, NOR, and even IAR (ignore all rules), are selectively deployed by experienced editors in order to prevail in debates. I am not exaggerating when I say it is the closest thing to Kafka’s The Trial I have ever witnessed, with editors and administrators giving conflicting and confusing advice, complaints getting “boomeranged” onto complainants who then face disciplinary action for complaining, and very little consistency in the standards applied. In my short time there, I repeatedly observed editors lawyering an issue with acronyms, only to turn around and declare “Ignore all rules!” when faced with the same rules used against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.105.188 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This complaint is not directed at you, yet.

However, your reaction, while partially positive, was sufficiently wishy-washy so as to raise doubts.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 174.25.48.161 (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you had left off the "yet" in the section heading here I would have been more charitable to you at ANI. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

COI: A bit of help

Hello DrFleischman.

In my editing I avoid topics related to my work - which is my only source of income, so I also don't have to worry about paid editing. However, after seeing your comment on COI I realized that I might still be in some amount of trouble. The thing is that for about 20 years I have operated a non-commerical web-service for hobby genealogists (such as myself), and about a dozen years ago I gave a phone interview to a journalist who subsequently wrote a small piece in the NYT about my service and volunteerism in genealogy in general. So in 2007, not long after having created my Wikipedia account, I added my own genealogy service to List of genealogy databases. That article is subject to quite a bit of link-spam, so in 2009 an editor removed it and (many) other non-notable entries. Some time after I readded it, this time citing the NYT source. It is still there (as one of few entries with a WP:RS). However, after having actually read WP:COI, I think my edits can be seen as COI, as a kind of self-promotion although not financial in nature. So I wanted to ask, is there a place (apart from right here), where I can properly declare this COI? It is my understanding that even if my contribution is deemed COI it will not have to be removed per se, just that it should probably be reviewed by someone else, who would then decide on whether to keep or remove (or rewrite) it. At one point, another editor did make a change to the entry regarding my service, but nevertheless I think it would be best if the entry was reviewed with the knowledge that I originally created it. If you can provide some guidance on this, I would be grateful. Thanks either way. Lklundin (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, most of us acted like newbies in one way or another before we became familiar with how things work here. Since your contribution to that page was already reviewed by other editors I personally don't think additional action is warranted; however if you want to be truly conscientious you could post a note at Talk:List of genealogy databases. If you want to go even further than that you could post a disclosure at User:Lklundin, but that strikes me as overkill. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, many thanks for your advice. After a bit of thinking, I added an entry to the Talk page. Thanks again. Lklundin (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on tagging essay

Just FYI, I made these 2 changes after you !voted. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC note

The RfC automation process will copy the RfC text up to the first signature to the RfC listing page, in this case Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:RFC specifies that you state the concise, neutral proposal or question, followed by your signature; that is what will be copied. Following that first signature, you can provide more detail or background about the proposal, followed by another signature.

As it stands now, everything up to and including your !vote will be listed. That's not only far from concise, but it is not neutral.

I'd suggest you add your signature following your initial "Subject" line. If it's too late and it has already been listed, I believe changing it on the VPP page will eventually cause the bot to update the listing page; that's what message says when you edit the listing page. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I think you may have misunderstood. I didn't start that RFC, I merely commented on it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I did misunderstand because the proposer failed to sign until much later. Sigh. Apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Sorry for the confusion, my signature was always there (original), but the header seemed too busy, so I moved my Proposer comment to the head of the comment section later. I was informed of my mistake and corrected the problem. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 02:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Health effects of eating breakfast

Thanks for the message. Your text is below and I'd be happy to discuss here as you wish. --Zefr (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your improvements to Breakfast#Effect on health! Are you done, at least for now? When you are, if you don't mind I have some questions for you about both the science (since by now you've dug into this more deeply than I have) as well as how we write about medical subjects, which is something I've done very little of so far.

"I can't win an argument on the merits so I'll run and go request page protection to prevent importamt, unsealed testimony from being added to theencylopedia"

obnoxiousness

-You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC) If you want others to play ball, then you have to play ball too. You can start by cutting out the edit warring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Hey Einstein, here's a SECONDARY source . Do not tell me rudely to "write a blog" when I am quoting froma secondary source, mmkay? Thanks. Again, note that this is a secondary source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/us/politics/donald-trump-university.html?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=Multimedia&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Yeah, I got that, but I'm not engaging on the merits while you edit war against consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 'I'm not engaging in the merits" = 'I am not arguing in good faith." We're finished here. That's exactly what I thought. Your loss. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC) You are an intellectually dishonest fraud. Enjoy your editing, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:99D8:4FE9:6EC6:EA9B (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC) I know, I'm worse than Trump! Gotta love that guy! Did you read that article about how he treats women, or the one about the Hong Kong investors? What a bunch of garbage. I guarantee you it's all a massive smear campaign. And I'm proud to be on the front lines, fighting back. Make America great again! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Since you basically admit below that you were wrong, and "we're getting awfully close" to that material belonging in the lead (as if the dozens of sources I gave you didnt already show that) , why not just put it where it belongs- in the lead, and not mentioned as a casual aside that the jusge has unsealed testimony by Trump's employees that the business was a "total lie" and essentially fraudulent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4DFE:B91B:87C0:6E1D (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC) What are you talking about? My boss never admits that he was wrong, so neither do I. Hey... were you one of those protesters I had tossed from the April 6 campaign rally on Long Island? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC) since we've already learned that reading is not your forte, I'll help you out: "at some point the damaging revelations may become sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the lead. We're getting close, in my view."-- fleishman admits the view he has been vehemently opposing all evening on procedural grounds is ultimately correct and will come soon enough, whether he likes it or not Cheers!2600:1017:B415:BEF2:4C86:3B76:19E8:4843 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Please leave me alone. No more edits on this page, of any sort. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for requesting the semi-protection. I think that will allow us to develop and defend a proper article. --MelanieN (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW I moved your sentence about the ex-employees' testimony to the paragraph about the document release - and I added the "playbooks" which have gotten at least as much reporting as the ex-employee's testimony. --MelanieN (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I like your changes. Though at some point the damaging revelations may become sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the lead. We're getting close, in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's possible. Let's see how the story develops over the next few days. --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Collabera Wikipedia Page

Thanks so much for your help with the Collabera page! The original was very out of date, and all over the place - I did my best to get it up to speed. It was great to have someone with more experience to help improve on what I did. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MushuNeak (talk • contribs) 01:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. What's your connection with LaesaMajestas? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We know each other. MushuNeak (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How? I hope you aren't coordinating your edits. Also, please review our guideline on conflicts of interest.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a pretty aggressive (and personal) line of questioning; I'm sure I'm not the only one here who knows another Wikipedian. Was there something that suggests I'm not working towards Wikipedia's best interests? I'm happy to learn from your advice, if I'm not doing something right. In the meantime, I'll ask LaesaMajestas to avoid pages that I've contributed to, and do the same on my side. MushuNeak (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just that I was really struck by the similarities between your user pages in combination with the overlap between your editing interests. If you're aware of our guidelines on such matters and you stick to your promise then I won't bring it up again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Understood and appreciated. I hadn't read through that guideline, so this has been helpful. MushuNeak (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, on to more pleasant things. If you're interested in further improving Collabera, I'd suggest refactoring the History and Recognition sections to be less chronological and listy. E.g. for the History section create a section called "Organization" (for leadership, headquarters, etc.) and another called "Acquisitions." For recognition, lump the related stuff together (e.g. both American Banker items, both KellyOCG items). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And remove items for which you can't find sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Collabera page was a disaster when I got there -- I was probably a little too ambitious to start with that as my first overhaul. Give me a few days to take your advice and see what I can do with it; formatting the recognition section will be an interesting challenge in particular -- perhaps you have an example in mind that I can model from? If not, I'll poke around and see what I can find. I definitely appreciate the help and advice. :-) MushuNeak (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in particular to model from. Most articles are written in a prose style rather than bullet point style. No problem about the evolution of the article, everything is a work in progress. Your contributions thus far are appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I made updates to the page finally - sorry to take forever to get to it. It's in a more narrative form, and I added some details to flesh out the style. I used a few articles from PR newswire, as I had trouble in some cases finding any other strong sources. Otherwise, there'd be some pretty big gaps in the company history. As it stands, I wish I'd been able to find more news about GCI, to fill in gaps between 1991 and 1997, and between 1997 and 2006. I'll try to hit this again sometime in the next couple months and see what I can find. For now, though, do you feel this is OK and an improvement? MushuNeak (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it was an improvement. I cut some of the less noteworthy material that wasn't supported by independent sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated -- I checked out your changes, and I agree on most. I was reluctant to remove the part about Oak Investment Partners, as it seemed to explain all the acquisitions and company restructuring that came afterwards -- seemed to me like the injection of funds may have led to that. It was also there before I started working on the article -- do you think if I found a better source to talk about it (not sure I can) it'd be worth building back in? The guidance and help has been very appreciated either way. MushuNeak (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again! I fixed a couple citations that were marked on the Collabera page, and I think they're ok. However, there's two "dead link" citations and one that says a citation is needed. For all three, I did a good-faith search for citations that would support them, but came up emptyhanded. The dead links point to Information Week articles that may exist in print form, so I could stop by my local library library maybe and see if I can find them and try to cite from there -- I'm going there in a day or so anyways. The one on "CMMI LEVEL 5" seems to be only reported by a press release from Collabera itself. Should we just remove that? Thanks so much for all your help over the past few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MushuNeak (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Same with Planet Asia - There's nothing outside of the company's stuff that claims that. It predates my work/improvements on the page. Should it go? MushuNeak (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting help updating TechSoup Global page

Hello DrFleischman, I am updating the TechSoup Global entry to address the issues raised in the banner that has been on the page for more than a year. I am seeking input from more experienced editors to ensure that I’m abiding by Wikipedia standards, in particular on COI when editing. You took an interest in the page about a year and a half ago when a different person was making updates, so I’d like to invite your input as to whether my current updates have been in line with community standards and any areas where I can continue to improve. I have spent time reading Wikipedia contributor guidelines and looking at other pages to see models of neutral contributions from other editors. I would welcome your feedback and any suggestions before I continue.Bajeckabean (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Becky. I'll respond on your user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As requested, I added some better citations to the TechSoup Global page. I am searching for reliable sources for the NetSquared section. I would appreciate your review of the citations and thank you for continuing to improve the page. -Bajeckabean (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Thanks for your input on my talk page re: the links to Climate change denial. I've replied there. User_talk:Frappyjohn#Climate_change_skepticism --Frappyjohn (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What is your evidence that Trump University had "classes"?

A class requires more than one student sharing a common instructor and some coordinated activity for all. It also must have a physical location to meet, or a Web platform serving that purpose. Tutoring or isolated lectures are not classes. deisenbe (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Take your pick from any number of reliable sources:

• Cohan, William D. "Big Hair on Campus: Did Donald Trump Defraud Thousands of Real-Estate Students?". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2016-03-06. Describing courses various enrollees took.
• Cassidy, John (June 2, 2016). "Trump University: It's Worse Than You Think". The New Yorker. "When it began, Trump University offered online classes, but it quickly switched its focus to live classes and seminars, the first of which was free to attend."
• Caldwell, Patrick (July 12, 2016). "Trump University Taught Students How to Exploit Disabled Homeowners". Mother Jones. Describing one of the courses offered.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Greater Washington Society of Association Executives proposed deletion

Concerning the proposed deletion, I would be favor of doing that and just listing the section in the American Society of Association Executives. Chris (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Connected contributor at Talk:Russ Baker

I notice you added a "connected contributor" template to the talk page and I was wondering what the basis for that was. Just by coincidence I've been involved in discussions at COI/N over the proper time that can be added when there is no declaration of COI, which I don't see here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the discussions at COI/N please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the discussion, which as you can see hasn't gone very far. As for Bn, while a connection would not surprise me I'm not seeing an direct evidence thereof or an admission. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A {{COI}} tag on an article page is a lot more extreme of a step than an {{connected contributor}} tag on an article talk page. Regardless, I've been frequently struck by Bn's knowledge of unverifiable details of Baker's life. Bn's last comment at Talk:Russ Baker pushed it over the top in my view. He claims to know that Baker received an award from the Northern California chapter of the SPJ while acknowledging that he hasn't been able to find this information online. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is more extreme but the connected contributor tag is more specific. As for your point, perhaps Bn can elaborate so I'll ping him.

@Bn: can you please address here or on the article talk page whether the connected contributor tag is justified? I believe you've edited after it was placed on the talk page so I assume you are cognizant of it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. F, if you are quite certain that there is an undisclosed COI, then this needs to be pursued. I've invited Bn to address whether indeed he is a connected contributor, but if he is then the template you placed is not the sole way of addressing such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Bn denied having a connection to WhoWhatWhy back in October 2014, and said he had contacted Russ Baker directly. However I'm having trouble taking that position seriously. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. It's an interesting coincidence that this is the second potential undisclosed COI situation I've encountered in the space of a week. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of the tag. No, it is not warranted. I have met Russ Baker several times when he was here giving talks, and I am able to contact him directly by email. I admire investigative journalism in general, and Russ's work as an example of it, but I do not work for him, for WhoWhatWhy, or for The Real News Project, nor do I receive any substantive or intangible benefit of any kind from them or from Russ, other than as a consumer (reader). I'm a linguist whose main concern these days is in helping the Pit River Indians get their (Achumawi) language back, work that I began in 1970. (You can look up my 1998 dissertation at Penn.) I currently have NSF/NEH funding to complete my linguistic database and train tribe members. You can probably find a list of current grants on the website for the Documenting Endangered Languages program. Some other academic interests are in Zellig Harris's theory of language and information and in a certain broad theory of behavior. No COI. Is there something else that I need to do to restore an assumption of good faith? Bn (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be conflating having a close connection with the subject, as defined in broad terms by WP:COI, with being a paid editor. You do appear to have a close connection but no one has said that you are paid. My concern was not COI but POV and the slanting of this article over a prolonged period of time. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

My concerns regarding this account's editing extends to Family of Secrets. Sorry, but I do not believe that this editor's summation of reviews that are offline or partially offline, such as the Time review, can be accepted in good faith. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It turns out that was just a one paragraph "skimmer" review. Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You'd be better advised to stick to NPOV, which applies to individual edits and improves the article, whereas COI and Stonewall target an editor and stifle discussion. Bn (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of NPOV, I just took a look at the original version of Family of Secrets, which you wrote and which was unambiguous promotion.[3]. The review section alone, with its obfuscation of the fact that the book received simply terrible reviews, pushes the assumption of good faith to the breaking point and beyond. Remember that AGF is not some kind of unconditional suicide pact. COI notwithstanding, you have utilized your account for purposes of promotion. COI is not taken very seriously in the project but promotional editing is viewed very dimly. I'd strongly urge you to desist. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Melania Trump

The page is protected, and the edit you recently reverted has been inputted again, can you revert this back please? 172.58.40.117 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No, but I did start a discussion on the talk page. See WP:BRD --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

In reply to your comment...

• Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.59.186.103&redirect=no

• I got your message here, where you said:

Greetings. Some of your recent edits do not appear to be civil toward other editors. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to (re-?) familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. In particular, it's relevant that WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• While I am not perfect, all of my comments - with the exception of a derogatory comment about another unregistered editor - were polite. And even that comment was clearly humourous, and I was respectful after I cracked that bad joke about him/her being an unregistered editor.

• Yes, I do think you were in error - thank you for being willing to listen to me.

• Did you "copy and paste" this message, as knee-jerk reaction, or rather did you actually write it? Also, even if you "copied and pasted" a template, that's OK, but did you actually have a gripe? If so, please tell me what I said (comments in "talk") or did (edit and/or edit comments) that was objectionable. Thank you.96.59.186.103 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean an insult, but I was heavy-handed, and here, at this 'diff', I apologised. On my honour, I did not intent to insult you or others. (PS: I have a dynamic IP address, so it is different today than previous days.) Thank you for your feedback and advice.96.59.147.247 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please review talk page discussion

Regarding your edit about heel spurs and all that, the NYT article that you mention has been extensively discussed at the article talk page. Why not join that discussion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

1RR

You're beyond 1RR at the Donald Trump article. I don't want to template you, so please revert. Thanks. I have to comply with this annoying 1RR rule, so others such as yourself should have to comply as well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. I don't think I reverted at all, let alone twice. Can you provide me with diffs please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&curid=4848272&diff=733718838&oldid=733716031

17:36, 9 August

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733584041&oldid=733581444

20:19, 8 August

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733569081&oldid=733568899

18:35, 8 August

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=733567977&oldid=733558622

18:25, 8 August

You are factually incorrect when you say the boycott did not precede Trump's comments about the judge, but that's a separate matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

None of those are reverts, are they? Aside from the restoration of the comments about Curiel, which was implementing the talk page consensus. (And I acknowledged my error about the timing of the boycott and struck the incorrect statement.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A revert is any edit or series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, and whether supported by consensus or not. That's why each of the four diffs I've given is a revert. I have been avoiding making more than one such edit in any 24-hour period.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. By your logic, any deletion or modification is a revert. That's not how WP:EW works. Are you seriously thinking of reporting me? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been brought to WP:EW for two reverts like these, much less the four we're discussing here. Basically, as you probably know, if the admins like you then they let you off, if they don't like you then they enforce the actual rules. In this case, the actual rule is clear. And it's the rule that I and other editors have been following.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Is that a yes or a no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's nothing personal, but if you're seriously not going to cancel the last of your four reverts, then I may well report it, if for no other reason than to make yet another futile attempt to get a narrower 1RR rule that I can actually follow without worrying about a block.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for a more constructive route that's less likely to get you in trouble: how about WT:EW or WP:VPP? And, while you're responding, could you please provide a link or two to examples of administrators interpreting WP:EW the way you're suggesting? Because I could be wrong, but your accusation seems like a broken arrow -- more pointy than accurate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm being absolutely frank with you: I have been stuck for months in the predicament of avoiding these kinds of repeated reverts within 24 hours, and other editors have been stuck with it too. This is not being pointy, it's being fair. If you're right, then I would like to know what the real rule is; more likley they will let you off without saying what the real rule is, so they can be more strict on other occasions. The language at WP:3RR is clear: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." If you can point to an official interpretation that differs from the plain meaning of this definition, I'm all ears, because it would be very handy for me and would free me up to make more edits. I don't take notes when I edit Wikipedia, and so cannot immediately point to a specific instance where this sentence at WP:3RR has been interpreted in any particular way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't find myself often at ANEW so I'm not up on all the technicalities. Nevertheless I edit lots of contentious articles so I have a pretty good sense of community expectations. When the rule refers to "undoing other editors' actions," it is referring to actions that occurred relatively recently the edit history, not actions that occurred at some unknown time way back in the history. When it refers to "whether in whole or in part," it is not referring to good faith attempts to compromise. I make no promises, but if you follow these guidelines I suspect you'll be ok. Have you had experiences to the contrary? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am submitting a 3RR report to get some clarity. I report other users extremely rarely, so I request that you please view the matter in that context; I'm not saying you're an egregious editor, just that I really need some definitive guidance on this. The rule could easily say it refers to actions that occurred relatively recently in the edit history, and could easily say that it does not refer to good-faith compromises. I have had experiences being sanctioned and banned when I did not violate any rule at all, much less violating the plain meaning of a rule. The 3RR report is here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Pity. You don't build consensus by turning friends into enemies over petty score-settling disputes with others. You seem bitter. Why not take a break and cool off? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed a pity that you want to personalize the matter and attribute venal motives. I hope that after the matter is resolved (either way) we can go back to being friendly. I think you agree that the first diff shows a revert. The idea that the third diff doesn't because the matter has been disputed at the talk page is kind of perplexing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You are wasting my time and I am deeply offended by your behavior. I have nothing constructive to say to you. You are banished from my talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Apologies for butting in here...I don't think I've visited this page before, but I just referenced you on another user's talk page, and thought I'd check you out. To the best of my understanding, a removal of material can sometimes be counted as a technical revert, but in my book it would boil down to the intent. I would be hesitant to call any of the first 3 edits linked above "reverts", as they seem to be citation maintenance and copyediting. The strongest case for "revert" of the 3 would be the removal of the citation. The last edit (Aug 9) I would count as a revert, since the Hispanic judge content had previously been removed. It is best to be careful on articles like this, though. Hopefully this clarification will save Anythingyouwant the trouble of making a 3RR report and the headache of trying to edit contentious articles without removing any words. ~Awilley (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Awilley. You were too late to stop Anythingyouwant from making a 1RR report, which can be found here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. I don't think it's too late for this to be resolved amicably. It looks like Anythingyouwant is considering withdrawing the 3RR report, and that might be a good thing, since messy and contentious reports tend to be ignored by patrolling admins anyway, especially during silly season. Perhaps if you unbanned them from your talk page you two could shake hands and move on with your editing? ~Awilley (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately they withdrew their report. I'll have to cool off for a little while before considering unbanning them. Maybe I'm good at avoiding drama, or maybe I'm just lucky, but this was the lamest interaction I've had on Wikipedia in years. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I'm unbanning you. Please never, ever report me (or anyone else) on the admin boards again for the purpose of gaining clarity on our policies or guidelines, or simply because you have been reported on the admin boards for similar conduct. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I reported you for one main reason: what I thought was a clear violation of 1RR. I note that Awilley has not answered my question at his talk page about whether your "Wharton" edit was a revert, which I think it clearly was. Anyway, I hope we can be friends. Please report me any time you think I've violated 1RR, although I'd appreciate an opportunity to revert myself (like I gave you). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't report non-disruptive editors who happen to break the rules once in a while, and I would appreciate it if you didn't either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And no, you didn't report me for what you thought was a clear violation. In your own words, you reported me to "gain some clarity" because you "really need[ed] some definitive guidance" on how WP:EW worked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As I've tried diligently to explain, two of the reverts were reported to gain guidance, and the other two were obvious reverts in my mind. And now that you mention it, it does so happen that my opinion is that you were being disruptive when you put me on a par with Gounc, and suggested that I might be topic-banned, and when you put his text into the article while discussion was ongoing to make it more balanced. I'm not saying that opinion of mine did or didn't have anything to do with the 1RR report.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

My goodness. I'm all out of patience. Good day. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to let you know that I will carefully study the sources you gave regarding Trump and the birther stuff. Lots going on right now, so it may be a day or so. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Signpost subscription

The Signpost subscription page is appearing as blank (to me at least) since you signed up. For the life of me I can't see anything wrong with your addition. Any ideas? Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a clue, but it looks ok to me. Maybe it was a temporary blip? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Tried it on my PC. Tried it on my phone. Slept on the problem. Logged out. Logged in again. Page still appeared blank. Hit Purge and everything appeared. Beyond weird. Thanks for having a look. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Citations unnecessary" at Donald Trump

Hi there. I hoped I was clearer about this point in my close, but it seemed to get lost. :( Citations are Very necessary for that claim per BLP. See WP:BLPSOURCES, which mandates the inline citation. I'm asking you to pick and add the best 2-3 sources you can find to that claim that weren't from a "Fact-checking site" to that sentence despite the fact that it is in the lede.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok. I was just re-reading your closing statement and realized that's what you meant just as you left me your note. That has never been my understanding of how WP:BLP interacts with WP:LEAD but I can certainly see your perspective. I'll add a couple of non-fact checker sources. Politico and probably TIME. And btw thanks for doing the deep dive, much appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good. WP:CITELEAD suggests that they are necessary, but it's an interesting argument. Thank you for the kind words. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: no attribution

Re: this, I think it's from Aetna’s CEO – Mark Bertolini, from something like here. Doesn't look like it should be included anyway to me, but just wanted to find the quote :) Arkon (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I did notice that. Glad to see that other folks are watching the page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk Page & 3O

Hey, I undid your edit since it was restoring a section duplication that I did unintentionally due to some funky copy-paste. The entire Third Opinion chain is preserved in the lower block and I marked the undo summary per WP:TPO. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggest an alternative?

Hi, can we have a brief side-discussion? I tried to support a modified sentence that addressed your concerns: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be advisable." But since you still have concerns, I wonder if something like this would work: "Trump is legally free to release the tax information, though tax attorneys differ as to whether such a course would be legally advisable for someone under audit". I've inserted the word "legally" plus the last three words. All of the tax attorneys were discussing legal ramifications of an audit. Obviously, since the tax attorneys disagree about the legal ramifications, there will be politicians and pundits urging Trump to release or not release, so do we really have to mention the latter? If so, maybe we can draft something that includes all this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestions still raise legal considerations above political one, which is inherently non-neutral. I believe the only way to make this content neutral is to omit it. What other folks think about Trump's refusal to release his returns isn't particularly biographically significant anyway. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I just said above that "we we can draft something that includes" the politicians and pundits, so it's hard to comprehend why you think that's non-neutral. Anyway, I assume you mean that the tax attorneys need to be omitted along with the pundits and politicians. I think that way implies that he has no legitimate legal reason to withhold the tax returns during the audit, which is simply false according to the sources I cited. How you think that's NPOV eludes me. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - American politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump RfC

Because you commented in the straw poll !vote, I invite you to comment on the new RfC on Talk:Donald Trump. I apologize for any inconvenience in "re-voting". Your past input is appreciated. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

email

"If you absolutely must discuss something with me off-wiki then please leave a note on my talk page and I will temporarily re-enable my e-mail." please do.108.20.74.42 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please login first and renew your request. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind.108.20.74.42 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear I'm not interested in doing you any favors. Move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump

Hi. So the Talk page is very long at Donald Trump and correct me if I am missing something, but it appears to me the dispute that was closed dealt specifically with the language of "bragged" vs "appeared to brag" or "talked". And that consensus was never reached regarding other problematic BLP issues regarding necessity for conservative wording, namely "forcibly" (which many sources do not use and which literally implies physical violence, something I hear no mention of on the tape, which is why I suggested "nonconsensually" which itself carries significant ethical gravity in noting lack of affirmative consent), or that Trump spoke about himself "groping" when that is an inference but not explicit in his literal language. I feel BLP standards require us to take a legalistic or lawyerly care which I do not believe occurred. I personally never disputed that he "bragged" which seems clear enough, it was the rest of the statement that I disputed in BLP terms, and I do not see actual consensus on these disputes in total as having been reached in discussion. Adlerschloß (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I believe Drmies closed all of the discussions about the neutrality of the current language, except for a "Proposal re: 'groping'", which as I understand it was essentially a rehash of "Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women", which was one of the ones he closed. If there's another issue that hasn't been addressed, then please raise it in a new discussion; but if it's to further improve language that the consensus has already deemed neutral then a POV tag isn't merited. As for your comment about being legalistic or lawyerly, I urge you to read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, as well as the widely cited WP:LAWYER. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what I meant in linking to WP:LAWYER. That essay describes Wikilawyering as:

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles
• Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express
• Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions

This was not at all what I meant at all by "lawyerly." What I meant was that the underlying principle of WP:BLP should give us cause to view controversial matters like this, metaphorically, from the perspective of a subject's defense attorney and not prosecutor. I genuinely understand that the spirit and underlying principles of WP:BLP are violated in the present phrasing in question, particularly the need for conservative phrasing on matters charged with high controversy. Trump and his campaign deny not only accusations of assault, but even that the content of Trump's private remarks describes what Wikipedia now straightforwardly asserts it to describe. On that Talk page when someone disputed that Trump "bragged", you told him to listen to the tape itself. Listening to the tape itself, Trump does not literally or explicitly say what we now state that he said. Even beyond that, we can note from a range of media descriptions, editors appeared to deliberately choose the most severe language possible when other options from equally credible sources would have sufficed -- that violates the spirit and underlying principle of WP:BLP. Of a range of choices, essentially the most anti-Trump phrasing of all possible options now stands. While English-language media has descended into a sort of pit of yellow journalism in regards to the present election campaign, as well as virtual totalitarian propaganda noting the near-unanimity of bias toward one political side (the sort of systematic media bias approaching that of a one-party state, that the US would characterize as undemocratic or inherently contributing to election fraud when occurring in countries opposed to US hegemony), we can and must do better than to cherry-pick the most biased among "reliable" sources when accusations of criminal behavior are involved. We can understand with near-certainty that if an identical recording had emerged in which Bill Clinton made the exact same remarks as Trump, the US media (minus places like Fox News) would not have characterized the remarks in the same language with which they characterized Trump's remarks. In this case, by "lawyerly" I meant nothing more than observing the underlying principles of BLP, far from abusing technicalities, in order to resist devolving into a lynch mob against Donald Trump. Adlerschloß (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• OK, it's hard to see the forest for the trees on that talk page. I must confess I'm a bit puzzled by the nature of some of the contributions there, especially the semantics of the existential import (would that be a redlink?) of any dependent of the verb "brag". Anyway, the phrasing that's in the article right now ("bragged about forcibly kissing and groping women") is indeed, IMO, enjoying a consensus in two of the sections I closed (the one you pointed out, Dr. Fleischman, and the one following that). If that is to be altered, I suggest a more formal RfC, not an expansion of a talk page section that itself appears to be a (continuing?) continuation of an earlier talk page section. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NLT

I've found your comments at AE very reasonable, but I have to disagree with this one about legal threats. If Ihardlythinkso is right the responsible thing to do is mention it. What's the difference between suggesting something may be libelous (which is allowed by policy) and saying if he were the subject he might sue? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a legal threat. I said it was a possible legal threat. It might be interpreted as encouragement for Trump to sue. It's certainly not a wise thing to write in response to an AE complaint. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure there's a small chance his statement might encourage Trump to sue, but he bigger risk comes from a libelous article. Pointing it out with the equivalent of "this may be libelous" and "the subject is fond of lawsuits" seem fine. He may be completely wrong, but being wrong doesn't make the statement any more a legal threat than if he were right. Maybe I'm missing something, I'll read the policy page again more closely. Thanks for responding. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It's one thing to say the article is libelous. It's another to say I would sue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)