Thank you for helping with the "Training" section. Its much better sourced now,I think. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are a whole lot of policies/guidelines here which most new Editors are not aware of and 1 of the ones least known is that we try to stay away from synthesis. Edits like this one [1] which uses subjective analytical words like "rebuffed" and "ridiculed" should only be used as a quote from the Reliable Source. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 16:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- This was an excellent source to add,I think. "...Dr. Welner's preparation, testimony and report reflected, "best practices in forensic psychiatry and psychology (pg 14)". Great work! Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 20:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I propose that you and Stewaj7 ( talk) consider the possibility that a reasonable portion of criticism within the Welner article (right now there is none at all) is not actually a bad thing either for the comprehensiveness of the BLP nor even for the stature of the Subject. Both of you are extremely boosterish of Welner in your comments and edits and condemn mercilessly those, like Alex Neve , who criticize his methods or fees to the point of insisting that such criticism be banned from the article. But I suggest you have a look at Alan Dershowitz which has an entire section on Issues and Controversies, yet I doubt you will find the article to be "negative".
Right now the Omar Khadr article is 5 times as long as the Michael Welner article. I think Welner's impact on society is as important as Khadr's, don't you? So, Welner's BLP needs to be much larger with much more content,I think, E.G. Both the Smart kidnapping case and also the Khadr case deserve subsections in the BLP I think. Perhaps we can all work toward making the article better. Where we differ, is I also want it to be very comprehensive to the point of including the Reliably Sourced criticisms which you two are quite dedicated to keeping out of the article on the basis that you have made a final determination that either the person making the criticism,like Neve, is biased, or that the criticisms are irrelevant.
Bottom line, I really think you are doing Mr. Welner a disservice by wanting to leave the article as a 100% Puff Piece] when he is,at least in my opinion, an assertive,flamboyant trailblazer and as most everyone agree, people like that always end up ruffling a lot of feathers. Right now, the BLP does not mention any of that ruffling at all, not one little mention of it. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 00:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Its really difficult to respond to the negative ad hominem assumptions you keep repeating and this venue does not work well when adversarial,combative words are used.
- You just accused me of having an "advocacy position for an admitted terrorist". That is nothing other than an outright and inflammatory falsehood.
- Then you say:"Your continued need to ensure that Welner's BLP focuses only on Omar Khadr". That is obviously false since my recent edit leaves the Khadr section taking up only about 15% of the BLP and the section on Welner's fees is just a small paragraph, half of which is supportive of his fees.
- This is about the 5th. time you accuse the Reliably Sourced content I've added of being "defamation", yet I have not seen any reports at all where Welner is claiming defamation about any of this content which has been in multiple major media publications.
- Also, I have not been reverting your content contributions, I am encouraging you to add more. You have been reverting my contributions. THere is a difference between re-adding content and deleting it. I've been doing the former and you've been doing the latter. As far as the 3RR rule, I will not break it and I have actually decided to edit the Welner BLP much less. I just hope some new, fresh and exceptionally objective Editors step into the article.
- Finally, and perhaps most important in terms of developing a good BLP on Welner, I made note on the article talk page about how welcome your work with the citations is, and I will repeat it here. Good work and thanks.
Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the candid and collaboratively worded message. I think our edit difficulties, between you and me, are largely communicative and assumptive. There is a policy here which is really cool; since you are,I think, much newer than me, you may not have noticed it. I think if we can both make an extra strong committment to adherance, we can accomplish exactly what you are proposing; the policy is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Its worth reading that entire policy page often, I just read it again for maybe the 10th time, obviously because I needed to.
Another thing, I am not a good "soundbite" communicator, I've tried but just can't get the hang of it, so hopefully you can be a bit patient if I seem a bit slow to get your point(s) and/or longwinded. OTOH, I will continue to try to understand anyone else's opinion.
One potential but not unsurmountable obstacle for you and I to work together better is this that I noticed about a week ago, after I thought you and I had made some headway. Stewaj7 reverted [2] an edit of mine [3] which was an attempt at compromise and which I did to return the article back to a state that you had left it in. That's ok, but then you went along with his/her opinion [4]. Of course, this is all to be expected here but it can cause difficulties,I think.
Now, most important, if I'm reading between the lines correctly and also as I suspected from the high quality of your edits,you have experience and maybe even training in adversarial communication, with a focus on making compelling arguments. I could be wrong, but I will go ahead and admit that I do have some of that type of experience and training and I have found that its usefullness in this venue is really really limited and perhaps,for me at least, counter-productive usually. Unless I can really understand where other Editors are coming from,and adapt my own edits accordingly, I can't usually accomplish near as much as I'd like.
Another thing is the word "Editor". That is really all we are here, basically repackagers of reports about people and things that have been written by Reliable Sources. In other words, a "good" editor here might find himself editing an article here in a way that pushes the tone of the article in a direction which is diametrically opposite of their own personal point of view if he thinks its too slanted in the other direction.
Just to show how hard it might be to tell what an Editor's personal opinion might be, I personally think that Welner's "pioneering" efforts are a very,very good thing because his efforts are, I think, forcing more everyday citizens to think about some things, like mental illness and the death penalty, or locking up a 15 year old for 8 years without a trial, that are not so comfortable and easy to think about.i.e. because of Welner's opinions and the publication thereof, I think more average Joes are going to be forming their own opinions which may or may not be the same as Welner's; i.e. Welner, imo, directly or more probably indirectly, is forcing more people to think about issues that are quite current and important. My opinion is that citizen apathy is by far the biggest enemy that freedom and civilization have in 2010, so I welcome the publication of Welner's opinions and also any Reliably Sourced controversy which may be generated therefrom. You see, one of the phrases that Welner used in the Khadr testimony was that while at Guantanamo Khadr has "been marinating in a radical jihadist community" during his eight-year detention. Now that definitely should go into Welner's BLP, because its a thoughtful bit of information that might be useful to people in the military incarceration fields who read Welner's BLP. It reminds people that GITMO, and likely places like it, have some of the same effects on inmates that regular prisons do, and I doubt there are any 15 year olds in America's Supermax prisons, so maybe next time someone like Khadr is held without trial for 8 years, they could be put somewhere that he does not "marinade". Regardless of one's advocacy position, if they have one, that might be seen as an improvement in protocol.
Finally, again as someone who maybe has more experience with this venue, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is the problem that we are largely dealing with here because there is so little Editor interest in this article; do you realize that the Khadr BLP gets daily viewership in the thousands while here its usually less than 100? If you'd like to know how to access free traffic statistics for Wikipedia articles,lmk. Back to point; imo,this article had been treated like the property of the few dedicated editors over the past 3 years, and I can tend to want to control articles myself so I'm not faultless in this aspect. But, I have been able to work in a collaborative manner on other BLPs and, not only that, I must somehow collaborate with you and even Stewaj7, when his block is over, otherwise I'll just be wasting my time.
OTOH, if we can help pull off the creation of a BLP here with NPOV that we can all agree on, I think it will be quite an accomplishment.
Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 16:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
the specifics
my reponses have a *
- Again, we will waste a lot of time if we have to address name-calling type of comments, so I propose we stop that entirely.
1. The fee section does not belong on a BLP - other expert witnesses, especially those who operate also in private practice, do not post their fees on their BLP. That being said, if this is a section that you feel is absolutely necessary - please do research to find other cases, outside of the most publicized (i.e. Smart and Khadr) that Dr. Welner worked on for which he was paid substantially lesser fees. The names of cases he worked on are on his BLP and I'm sure the info is out there. This editor will not do this research as he/she feels it is completely inappropriate, malicious (although you feel it is an unfair term, this is how it comes across on the BLP with continuous reinserting) and unnecessary, especially given the fact that other experts do not post their fees on their BLP. The only reason that can be gathered for 3rd party editors from Khadr sympathizing Toronto to continuosly post fees is to malign the page and that is a fact that continues to become real as you continue to reinsert, yet to claim there is a lack of neutrality.
- What should go in are the most widely reported articles concerning his fees. But,for balance, feel free to put in something about any pro-bono or low fees.
- Toronto is not "Khadr sympathizing Toronto". Toronto does have a population who places a high value on due process and civil rights; most of us learned about the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus in high scool. Most of us are more interested in the just application of law in a generic sense than how 1 individual might be affected, although that is also important. We also know about the American Bill of Rights and are mostly admirers of it.
2. The Guantanamo section does not belong on Welner's BLP - if anything it belongs on the Khadr page; a paragraph on the Khadr case was inserted after reaching consensus among the editors and then you begin to bring this section into the BLP - it is as if you want no consensus to be reached on the BLP; Many legal circles are aware of Dr. Welner and his work - prior to Khadr, how do you think this editor got involved in editing this page and ensuring Dr. Welner's reputation in the community is not continuosly maligned by the advocates of the most recent defendant?
- Its notable for Welner's BLP because of all the articles written about Welner's testimony specifically.
Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 17:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I replied on Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) talk page Empirical9 ( talk) 13:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I like your last edit. Exceptionally good writing,in my opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 01:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a couple of resources you might find useful: [5] [6] Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Empirical9 and User:Stewaj7 reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Stale). If the issue had been noticed sooner, it is likely that both you and Stewaj7 would had been blocked. Please ensure that you have consensus on the article's talk page for any further changes that you may make to this article. That noticeboard is a place to report violations of our policy on WP:Edit warring. Be sure you are familiar with the WP:Three-revert rule. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am confused as to why the other editors can make changes without reaching consensus? I cannot speak for Stewaj7 and the link you provided does not allow me to see whatever was discussed regarding my edits, however, I have reached out to MrGrantevans2 on multiple occasions to reach consensus and in many cases, he and I did. He would then, hours later or days later, revert the changes, reinserting his own agenda driven POV. I would appreciate an explanation as I am extremely confused as to how this editor is being flagged and Mrgrantevans2 is not. Empirical9 ( talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The 3RR complaint has been archived, and it may now be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive145#User:Empirical9 and User:Stewaj7 reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Protected).
- Your edits are also being discussed at WP:COIN#Michael Welner. One person there asserts "I noticed the SPAs [single-purpose accounts] active there, which seem to want to exclude anything they don't like from the article (even some of Welner's own writings)." It does appear that you may be engaged in promotional editing at Michael Welner. One of the things we use to flag a conflict of interest is when an editor repeatedly takes out well-sourced criticism from an article. You may respond at WP:COIN if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stewaj7 Fladrif ( talk) 18:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for helping with the "Training" section. Its much better sourced now,I think. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are a whole lot of policies/guidelines here which most new Editors are not aware of and 1 of the ones least known is that we try to stay away from synthesis. Edits like this one [1] which uses subjective analytical words like "rebuffed" and "ridiculed" should only be used as a quote from the Reliable Source. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 16:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- This was an excellent source to add,I think. "...Dr. Welner's preparation, testimony and report reflected, "best practices in forensic psychiatry and psychology (pg 14)". Great work! Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 20:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I propose that you and Stewaj7 ( talk) consider the possibility that a reasonable portion of criticism within the Welner article (right now there is none at all) is not actually a bad thing either for the comprehensiveness of the BLP nor even for the stature of the Subject. Both of you are extremely boosterish of Welner in your comments and edits and condemn mercilessly those, like Alex Neve , who criticize his methods or fees to the point of insisting that such criticism be banned from the article. But I suggest you have a look at Alan Dershowitz which has an entire section on Issues and Controversies, yet I doubt you will find the article to be "negative".
Right now the Omar Khadr article is 5 times as long as the Michael Welner article. I think Welner's impact on society is as important as Khadr's, don't you? So, Welner's BLP needs to be much larger with much more content,I think, E.G. Both the Smart kidnapping case and also the Khadr case deserve subsections in the BLP I think. Perhaps we can all work toward making the article better. Where we differ, is I also want it to be very comprehensive to the point of including the Reliably Sourced criticisms which you two are quite dedicated to keeping out of the article on the basis that you have made a final determination that either the person making the criticism,like Neve, is biased, or that the criticisms are irrelevant.
Bottom line, I really think you are doing Mr. Welner a disservice by wanting to leave the article as a 100% Puff Piece] when he is,at least in my opinion, an assertive,flamboyant trailblazer and as most everyone agree, people like that always end up ruffling a lot of feathers. Right now, the BLP does not mention any of that ruffling at all, not one little mention of it. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 00:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Its really difficult to respond to the negative ad hominem assumptions you keep repeating and this venue does not work well when adversarial,combative words are used.
- You just accused me of having an "advocacy position for an admitted terrorist". That is nothing other than an outright and inflammatory falsehood.
- Then you say:"Your continued need to ensure that Welner's BLP focuses only on Omar Khadr". That is obviously false since my recent edit leaves the Khadr section taking up only about 15% of the BLP and the section on Welner's fees is just a small paragraph, half of which is supportive of his fees.
- This is about the 5th. time you accuse the Reliably Sourced content I've added of being "defamation", yet I have not seen any reports at all where Welner is claiming defamation about any of this content which has been in multiple major media publications.
- Also, I have not been reverting your content contributions, I am encouraging you to add more. You have been reverting my contributions. THere is a difference between re-adding content and deleting it. I've been doing the former and you've been doing the latter. As far as the 3RR rule, I will not break it and I have actually decided to edit the Welner BLP much less. I just hope some new, fresh and exceptionally objective Editors step into the article.
- Finally, and perhaps most important in terms of developing a good BLP on Welner, I made note on the article talk page about how welcome your work with the citations is, and I will repeat it here. Good work and thanks.
Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the candid and collaboratively worded message. I think our edit difficulties, between you and me, are largely communicative and assumptive. There is a policy here which is really cool; since you are,I think, much newer than me, you may not have noticed it. I think if we can both make an extra strong committment to adherance, we can accomplish exactly what you are proposing; the policy is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Its worth reading that entire policy page often, I just read it again for maybe the 10th time, obviously because I needed to.
Another thing, I am not a good "soundbite" communicator, I've tried but just can't get the hang of it, so hopefully you can be a bit patient if I seem a bit slow to get your point(s) and/or longwinded. OTOH, I will continue to try to understand anyone else's opinion.
One potential but not unsurmountable obstacle for you and I to work together better is this that I noticed about a week ago, after I thought you and I had made some headway. Stewaj7 reverted [2] an edit of mine [3] which was an attempt at compromise and which I did to return the article back to a state that you had left it in. That's ok, but then you went along with his/her opinion [4]. Of course, this is all to be expected here but it can cause difficulties,I think.
Now, most important, if I'm reading between the lines correctly and also as I suspected from the high quality of your edits,you have experience and maybe even training in adversarial communication, with a focus on making compelling arguments. I could be wrong, but I will go ahead and admit that I do have some of that type of experience and training and I have found that its usefullness in this venue is really really limited and perhaps,for me at least, counter-productive usually. Unless I can really understand where other Editors are coming from,and adapt my own edits accordingly, I can't usually accomplish near as much as I'd like.
Another thing is the word "Editor". That is really all we are here, basically repackagers of reports about people and things that have been written by Reliable Sources. In other words, a "good" editor here might find himself editing an article here in a way that pushes the tone of the article in a direction which is diametrically opposite of their own personal point of view if he thinks its too slanted in the other direction.
Just to show how hard it might be to tell what an Editor's personal opinion might be, I personally think that Welner's "pioneering" efforts are a very,very good thing because his efforts are, I think, forcing more everyday citizens to think about some things, like mental illness and the death penalty, or locking up a 15 year old for 8 years without a trial, that are not so comfortable and easy to think about.i.e. because of Welner's opinions and the publication thereof, I think more average Joes are going to be forming their own opinions which may or may not be the same as Welner's; i.e. Welner, imo, directly or more probably indirectly, is forcing more people to think about issues that are quite current and important. My opinion is that citizen apathy is by far the biggest enemy that freedom and civilization have in 2010, so I welcome the publication of Welner's opinions and also any Reliably Sourced controversy which may be generated therefrom. You see, one of the phrases that Welner used in the Khadr testimony was that while at Guantanamo Khadr has "been marinating in a radical jihadist community" during his eight-year detention. Now that definitely should go into Welner's BLP, because its a thoughtful bit of information that might be useful to people in the military incarceration fields who read Welner's BLP. It reminds people that GITMO, and likely places like it, have some of the same effects on inmates that regular prisons do, and I doubt there are any 15 year olds in America's Supermax prisons, so maybe next time someone like Khadr is held without trial for 8 years, they could be put somewhere that he does not "marinade". Regardless of one's advocacy position, if they have one, that might be seen as an improvement in protocol.
Finally, again as someone who maybe has more experience with this venue, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is the problem that we are largely dealing with here because there is so little Editor interest in this article; do you realize that the Khadr BLP gets daily viewership in the thousands while here its usually less than 100? If you'd like to know how to access free traffic statistics for Wikipedia articles,lmk. Back to point; imo,this article had been treated like the property of the few dedicated editors over the past 3 years, and I can tend to want to control articles myself so I'm not faultless in this aspect. But, I have been able to work in a collaborative manner on other BLPs and, not only that, I must somehow collaborate with you and even Stewaj7, when his block is over, otherwise I'll just be wasting my time.
OTOH, if we can help pull off the creation of a BLP here with NPOV that we can all agree on, I think it will be quite an accomplishment.
Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 16:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
the specifics
my reponses have a *
- Again, we will waste a lot of time if we have to address name-calling type of comments, so I propose we stop that entirely.
1. The fee section does not belong on a BLP - other expert witnesses, especially those who operate also in private practice, do not post their fees on their BLP. That being said, if this is a section that you feel is absolutely necessary - please do research to find other cases, outside of the most publicized (i.e. Smart and Khadr) that Dr. Welner worked on for which he was paid substantially lesser fees. The names of cases he worked on are on his BLP and I'm sure the info is out there. This editor will not do this research as he/she feels it is completely inappropriate, malicious (although you feel it is an unfair term, this is how it comes across on the BLP with continuous reinserting) and unnecessary, especially given the fact that other experts do not post their fees on their BLP. The only reason that can be gathered for 3rd party editors from Khadr sympathizing Toronto to continuosly post fees is to malign the page and that is a fact that continues to become real as you continue to reinsert, yet to claim there is a lack of neutrality.
- What should go in are the most widely reported articles concerning his fees. But,for balance, feel free to put in something about any pro-bono or low fees.
- Toronto is not "Khadr sympathizing Toronto". Toronto does have a population who places a high value on due process and civil rights; most of us learned about the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus in high scool. Most of us are more interested in the just application of law in a generic sense than how 1 individual might be affected, although that is also important. We also know about the American Bill of Rights and are mostly admirers of it.
2. The Guantanamo section does not belong on Welner's BLP - if anything it belongs on the Khadr page; a paragraph on the Khadr case was inserted after reaching consensus among the editors and then you begin to bring this section into the BLP - it is as if you want no consensus to be reached on the BLP; Many legal circles are aware of Dr. Welner and his work - prior to Khadr, how do you think this editor got involved in editing this page and ensuring Dr. Welner's reputation in the community is not continuosly maligned by the advocates of the most recent defendant?
- Its notable for Welner's BLP because of all the articles written about Welner's testimony specifically.
Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 17:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I replied on Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) talk page Empirical9 ( talk) 13:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I like your last edit. Exceptionally good writing,in my opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 01:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a couple of resources you might find useful: [5] [6] Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Empirical9 and User:Stewaj7 reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Stale). If the issue had been noticed sooner, it is likely that both you and Stewaj7 would had been blocked. Please ensure that you have consensus on the article's talk page for any further changes that you may make to this article. That noticeboard is a place to report violations of our policy on WP:Edit warring. Be sure you are familiar with the WP:Three-revert rule. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am confused as to why the other editors can make changes without reaching consensus? I cannot speak for Stewaj7 and the link you provided does not allow me to see whatever was discussed regarding my edits, however, I have reached out to MrGrantevans2 on multiple occasions to reach consensus and in many cases, he and I did. He would then, hours later or days later, revert the changes, reinserting his own agenda driven POV. I would appreciate an explanation as I am extremely confused as to how this editor is being flagged and Mrgrantevans2 is not. Empirical9 ( talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The 3RR complaint has been archived, and it may now be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive145#User:Empirical9 and User:Stewaj7 reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Protected).
- Your edits are also being discussed at WP:COIN#Michael Welner. One person there asserts "I noticed the SPAs [single-purpose accounts] active there, which seem to want to exclude anything they don't like from the article (even some of Welner's own writings)." It does appear that you may be engaged in promotional editing at Michael Welner. One of the things we use to flag a conflict of interest is when an editor repeatedly takes out well-sourced criticism from an article. You may respond at WP:COIN if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stewaj7 Fladrif ( talk) 18:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)