Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 17 June 2013

Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

Moderated Tea Party discussion

I have concerns that User:ThinkEnemies and User:Phoenix and Winslow are questioning the good faith of others in the moderated tea party discussion. Some examples can be found here and the last few comments added here.Casprings (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What is this? †TE†Talk 20:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have given Phoenix and Winslow a warning for the personalised comments, though I don't see that ThinkEnemies has done wrong. I've hatted the section as it wasn't helpful, though I agree that the page does at times become difficult to navigate. SilkTork 23:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings has become obstructive about something so fundamental as archiving discussions that were more than 30 days old. I tried and he reverted immediately a couple of days ago. Hoping he will listen to you and perhaps read WP:DBAD. If you're wondering what triggered my oblique remark, that was it. I created an "Archive 1" page. Feel free to use it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: It's been more than 24 hours and I'm sure you're busy. So I went ahead and archived everything you said you were going to archive. Just trying to save you some time. Created Archive 1 and Archive 2. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing at the unlocked TPm article

There have been a couple of edits made without adequate discussion or consensus. This edit was made with no discussion whatsoever, and as I am opposed to it, but do not intend to revert until you hearing your opinion on the developments. The link to the source, incidentally, is not dead, just missing a space between the URL and title Foley, Elizabeth Price , Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments (August 3, 2011). Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78, p. 751, 2011.

I've been too busy to get around to raising the Constitution and the TPm agenda, but intend too when time permits. It's possible that another subarticle will result from that, considering the amount of material that has been published recently on the topic. We have, however, as you may recall, discussed the issue previously on the moderated discussion page, so it is not as if it is unknown as a major concern I have with the article, at any rate.

There has also been reverting .

If an editor makes an edit without discussion and says "Revert me if you disagree" is this in accord with the procedures set out in the moderated discussion?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just stating the Tea Party is anti-immigration would be a revertible offense. The entire sentence is ridiculous. Sure you can find a couple people to call the movement anti-immigration, or anti-tax, or anti-government, or nationalistic, or against compromise politics, whatever that means, but it's all patent nonsense. According to the logic applied for such statements, Obama is either pro-legalization or anti-law for his drug use as a young man. This is an encyclopedia, the opinion of a couple people shall not define our president or a political movement. †TE†Talk 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to lay out what Ubikwit is attempting to "spin up" here ......

• I made 2 what I would consider to be gnome type edits which I think would have zero opposition, but to be triply safe said "please revert me if you disagree"
• I reverted an extreme un-discussed edit and said "please take it to talk"

North8000 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have topic banned North8000 and Phoenix and Winslow ‎for one week for removing sourced content from the article without consensus. SilkTork 17:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That was totally uncalled for! It was a gnome edit, the edit summary asked anybody who disagreed to revert me'. Where is the controversy? Who is going to argue that a TPM agenda item is to prevent the states from being allowed to pick their Senators by an election? And I don't even see that rule that you are describing anywhere. Where is it? You are going to turn this article into a fifth rail that nobody is going to want to risk working on.North8000 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

major new proposals at the moderated discussion with "consensus by default"

I would suggest major aticle changes as proposed (and actually made by others) should be fully discussed by everyone -- having one group estopped entirely from that discussion which appeared after the topic bans may be problematic, alas. Otherwise, the changes will have "consensus by default" which I trust was not your intent. Thus I suggest relocking the articles and asking for discussion on such additions to the main article and subarticles. Misplaced Pages does not function well when a particular "side" has free reign without even paying lip-service to finding a general consensus (which I had thought we had finally reached). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the topic banned editors have not been banned from the moderated discussion, so consensus would not be default, and that is why issues are being discussed there.

The IRS material appears to have been moved from the main article 2013_IRS_scandal.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you reread what "topic ban" entails - as normal Misplaced Pages usage, it absolutely includes the entire topic, and it would not surprise me if the two take it as a basic vacation from the topic. If I am wrong, then it is likely the two banned editors have my same wrong opinion - and ST can certainly apprise them that they are only barred from making article edits. I consider moving f an argumentative section from a subarticle into the main article to be the same as making that claim in the main article, and is thus a substantive change to the main article. Clearly you suggest that a huge change in a subarticle then can have a huge change in the main article, and it would not be a "suubstantive change" to the main article. I demur, and suggest the major change in the main article ought to be discussed in the moderated page firts. Viriditas is, in fact, aware of the moderated discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you read the section on the Moderated discussion page where Silk Tork writes

They may continue to join in the discussion on this page.

Regarding the IRS material, I left a comment on the Moderated discussion page, but as I have not taken part at the IRS article, I don't have anything to add.

However, Viriditas was not necessarily following the moderated discussion, having not participated in it, so you might have started by raising any objections with him directly, too. Since it was unlocked, there have been at least two other edits made to the article by editors not participating in the moderated discussion.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are topic banned only from one article, and only for one week. They have been told (and encouraged) to continue to join in with the discussion. And they have not been banned from any other article. I want people to edit the article. But I want those who edit it to be trustworthy, and to only edit by consensus, not to revert or encourage or incite others to revert, not to remove or add content that alters meaning without first establishing that it is OK to do do, not to make edits based on guessing or assuming, but to follow the academic principles of doing research FIRST, and then supporting statements with citations, and to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines on building an article. This is editing basics, and should be done on every article. It is particularly important that it should be done on this article. This is not the article to be making bold edits, nor uncertain edits. This is an article where we need people to be putting their proposals down on the talkpage and getting consensus. Who actually makes the edit after consensus has been done, doesn't matter. As long as that person actions the edit as agreed, and does not add their own twist as they are doing so. I am concerned there is not much time before ArbCom reconvenes, and I don't want edit wars to start up on the article between now and then. So I want all edits to the article to be secure and agreed. And if there are editors who are not able to discern when an edit has been agreed or not, they should be discouraged from editing the article. If necessary, permanently. I can't make that clear enough. The article has suffered for years because editors have taken unilateral action on the article rather than seeking consensus first. On a contentious topic like this it is vital to discus and get consensus. Doubly so when there's a moderated discussion taking place. And triply so when there's an ArbCom case being held in suspension. If I was not restrained by my position as both the drafting Committee member of the ArbCom case and the moderator of the discussion, I would join in with the content discussion, and push things along. What would be helpful here is for more independent editors experienced in NPOV editing to join in the discussion and help things along. Perhaps some recruiting can be done? SilkTork 12:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, someone just made an extreme undiscussed change in the first sentence of the article. What happens now? North8000 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just notified that editor of the Moderated dicsussion User_talk:John_Paul_Parks#Tea_Party_movement_and_the_Constitution.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is the appropriate approach. I will copy this over to the talkpage so people are clear. SilkTork 11:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors who might be Shanghaied recruited include Bbb23, YouReallyCan (for opinions on any BLP issues - the AN/I fiasco was unfair as many weighed in on "IDONTLIKEHIM" grounds, IMHO), UKexpat, Jclemens and Ironholds as ones whose soundness of opinion is generally accepted. Some of the most eager to make edits are, IMO, the ones who should be most encouraged to leave the room. Thank. Collect (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will approach them. SilkTork 11:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I trust these are sufficiently respected editors here - sorry that YRC was not included, of course. Collect (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The only user I could find with that name - User:Youreallycan - is blocked. SilkTork 14:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at the current discussion on the Seventeenth Amendment at the TPm talk page? There was also this tag posted, which seems inappropriate considering the number and quality of sources that support the statement.

Also, I have suggested that the discussion should be taking place at the moderated discussion page, but am meeting some resistance to that. The situation has not reached the state where exactly the same topical matter is being discussed in different forums in a disparate manner, but it would seem headed in that direction.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you reverse the article-space page ban?

As you correctly pointed out, the impact is minor but IMO the principle of it is important. My plan then and now is to stay on very non-controversial ground and within the rules regarding editing the TPM article. I felt that the edit was on very safe ground, and triply so not meriting such an action. On this basis:

• I assumed that all would agree even the idea of it it was a clear error and implausible.
• It was done in a gnome and friendly spirit, and I asked that if anyone (=even one person) disagreed with it for them to revert me.
• It (as written) is NOT sourced. At the time I did it there was no source on the sentence and a source on the following sentence (which was on a different topic) was a dead link. Afterwards someone fixed the link on the following sentence and I found the mention in the source and (as detailed on the talk page) it still does NOT support the sentence in the article.
• There is no rule that I was violating. I don't think it would even violate the rule that you wrote afterwards, but if it had existed then, I would not have done the edit to be triply safe & triply easygoing.

My plan then and now is to stay on very non-controversial ground and within the rules regarding editing the TPM article. Could you reverse it? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to admire North8000's determination to continue working on that article, but we have effectively become second-class citizens. We've been working diligently to improve the article for months, in his case years; we've participated with enormous patience in the moderated discussion for three f@cking months, despite all the bullshit; and because we participated in the moderated discussion, we can't edit the article. Meanwhile, anybody with an axe to grind can just show up and change the lede f@cking sentence of the article to "The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to its own view of the United States Constitution," without any discussion on the Talk page or any other page — he just drove by, rolled down the window and did it — and there it stays without being reverted, and the drive-by editor faces no repercussions whatsoever. SMH Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Actioned edit of reference to Constitution in lead

Since there has been more editing to the clause at issue, which is also being addressed immediately above, and given the fact that more than 24 hours have passed with two in support and none opposed (a couple of comments, somewhat unclear), I have restored the reverted edit, adding another source in light of citation tags that have appeared recently, and reworded slight in a manner facilitating retention of the reference to "the Constitution" and clarifying that it is an interpretive methodology, not an interpretation per se. The clause reads

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates a version of constitutional originalism for interpreting the United States Constitution

As it is not inconceivable that this edit, too, will meet with a clamorous response, I've decided to post this here in advance.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)