User talk:Msheflin
1RR
The article Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 is under a 1 revert restriction. You have made two reverts [1], [2]. Please self revert your latest reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is a disaster. I was trying to undo vandalism. ... I'm happy to figure out what you want me to do... Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Basically, the NPR part is in the middle of another sentence which makes it unreadable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize. I'll fix it. ... Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC) ... I read a full and complete sentence. I removed repetition in the Harry Reid sentence but the NPR sentence reads fine to me. Maybe it's a wording problem? Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Delegate count sources
Hello,
Per the relevant footnote, the pledged delegates come from the Green Papers and the Supers come from our other Wikipedia page that lists the superdelegates. There is currently a discussion on the talk page of the Democratic Primary, and it appears an overwhelming majority of users want to use our other Wikipedia page as our source. Now that I've noticed such a discrepancy between our count and other sources, I'm leaning toward citing AP or CNN.
S51438 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be more than happy to chime in when you start the consensus building process - on the talk page I assume?
- Do the GreenPapers cite their sources? I didn't see any on a quick look. My primary concern was that one of their two Superdelegate sources appears to be Wikipedia [3] and their may be concerns with the sourcing of the Wiki page - per the talk page on the Dem Primaries article. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- The process has already been started. Join the discussion in the link I provided on my talk page. If you can't find it, let me know. The Green Papers only cites individual state totals. There is no comprehensive list like we have. If the Green Papers is citing Wikipedia, then we should strongly consider making our information accurate, which I believe it is not. I agree that the sourcing of the Wikipedia page is problematic because we have limitations that CNN/AP/etc do not. We should join the discussion. S51438 (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the consensus process for [*the binary question of] whether to include [*soft] delegate totals has started a process for which source to use in how to compile the pledged delegate totals? I don't agree with that assessment if so. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting remove soft delegate totals in their entirety? I'm confused. The process on the talk page is what source to use to cite soft delegate totals. This is under the assumption we will use the Green Papers for pledged and combine the two sources for total # of delegates. S51438 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting removing soft totals. You seemed to imply that the process for building consensus to include such totals would somehow encompass which sources to use in counting pledged delegates, however. Who decided on the GreenPapers initially, do you know? Either way my reading of this [4] section is that it has nothing specifically to do with how to count pledged delegates and is not specifically about resolving a source discrepancy. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will admit that I simply don't know the consensus process for why we decided on the Green Paper initially. I'm actually a late player in this process, only becoming active in late April and early May. I did not mean to imply that, I apologize. I have only been following what previous editors stated was the agreed upon source for pledged delegates (Green Papers). And I agree, there isn't enough input about the discrepancies. S51438 (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Then to reiterate, I think you should hold off until you start a consensus building process on this or until you can find that original process and cite to it. It's already procedural problematic; it's that much worse if it's also procedurally invalid. So we should at least seek to reaffirm it. Preferably before Tuesday, and especially before June 7. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- So are you saying we should not update super totals or pledged delegate totals until consensus is reached/affirmed? S51438 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Found it. There was a discussion between using the Green Papers and the Associated Press. Here was the consensus reached "A consensus has been reached to use both sources. The Green Papers are to be used for projections until the official results are published by The Associated Press.". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016/Archive_2#Delegate_count S51438 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think this issue needs to be revisited either way. The discussion is long but confusing and there is nothing resembling consensus. One camp felt that TGP updated more quickly and cited better to local sources. I can't find their sources for pledged delegates citing to anything. So if that discussion was referring to the Superdelegates on TGP that negates the entire thing... I think... But there was also an AP camp; and the discussion ended and was closed with one editor saying there was only one objection to TGP, someone pointing out that that wasn't true, someone else launching into the inappropriateness of using a site like TGP for something like this. Then it looks like it was closed without a vote. If I missed a major portion where they actually decided something or got to agreement please quote it. I'm not trying to be obtuse. So I think ... maybe revisited is too harsh ... I'm not sure why the debate was closed but that needs to be resolved, particularly in light of the new information. Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting removing soft totals. You seemed to imply that the process for building consensus to include such totals would somehow encompass which sources to use in counting pledged delegates, however. Who decided on the GreenPapers initially, do you know? Either way my reading of this [4] section is that it has nothing specifically to do with how to count pledged delegates and is not specifically about resolving a source discrepancy. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting remove soft delegate totals in their entirety? I'm confused. The process on the talk page is what source to use to cite soft delegate totals. This is under the assumption we will use the Green Papers for pledged and combine the two sources for total # of delegates. S51438 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for
Hey I just wanted to drop by and say good job on trying to fix the democratic primaries page, even though you were met with lots of resistance. BTW I hate Bernie, but i think it's good that there's still people trying to get a NPOV on wikipedia by getting the allegations of election fraud mentioned. Kswikiaccount (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- lol. Well... my pleasure, but I think obstructionism is winning. The sources I've gathered encompass complaints against either candidate because to me any disenfranchisement, electioneering, fraud, and voter suppression that burdens the right to vote (including in primaries) is a constitutional issue foremost. I think a lot of the counterarguments to inclusion have been in absolutely bad faith and are an obvious attempt - as you pointed out - to game Wiki's rules to exclude information. And the irony is that as a result it's very hard to have conversations with these vehemently opposed editors because they can't find the information on Wikipedia...
- In any event, my understanding of the consensus process is that it need only include legitimate concerns. And the only legitimate concerns I've heard are where the information should go - stub section to a separate article, section, interwoven. I don't think exclusion from any centralized mention is valid; arguably there's no national primary count up to the convention but we still have a national primary article in addition to all the state allocation processes where the counts actually occur (primaries, caucuses, and at least for NV conventions). And then there's more minor stuff like whether all lawsuits should be included and other evidentiary issues - the exit polling issue. That's stuff that can get sorted once the topic is shunted to a less general and more appropriate page. I may be missing a few concerns, but generally I see many of the counterarguments as bad faith. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I must state that Wikipedians are not only asked, but commanded to assume good faith. When an editor lodges a concern, they very well may be trying to subvert the process of adding additional information, but it is incorrect for us to assume this. When there was a months-log debate over the addition of the popular vote, every concern lodged against it was considered legitimate and addressed in the consensus determination. I think it is bad etiquette to dismiss most of these concerns as illegitimate because it goes against the central premise of Wikipedia: we all wish to provide information as fairly and accurately as possible. S51438 (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- "I find your actions simply appalling", you said to me, as you repeatedly ignored my request for you to actually quote the information you were including based on fraudulent citations. I'm still waiting... Of course you argued that you didn't need to provide valid sources, presuming... I guess... that my extremely straightforward, nonjudgmental question was in bad faith (?). You clarified that viewpoint here when noting that I had not read an article you failed to cite to: "Do I need to provide a citation?" I explained that you did and we're still waiting since that article also did not actually include the information you alleged (that was the second or third time... when is bad faith a valid inference?). But when the going gets rough... double down: "I'm honestly in shock that someone could go to such great lengths to avoid what is obviously true." Once again... I was 100% correct and you are implying... or perhaps just stating outright... that I am a liar. Ironic in the true sense. But clearly that cannot be the case since you are "commanded to assume 'good faith.'" You use lofty words; I don't think they quite fit your actions here. I think you had no intention of allowing uncomfortable information to be presented and the record shows that you were willing to misrepresent the truth to achieve that goal; and you did achieve that goal. At first you participated (heavily) in editing the fraud section - in an increasingly overtly partisan manner over the course of its tenure (as I have cited to on the Talk page) - at the end of which you deleted the entire section because "We cannot allow potentially contentious information to be included without a consensus, a rule proscribed by Wikipedia." I think you basically defaulted from a strategy of "correction," to a strategy of deletion and stonewalling within your consensus process. But I am commanded to assume good faith. Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- And I missed your main point here. Your baseline assumption was essentially that I was making a pro-Sanders argument, where I've repeatedly stated my interest is primarily constitutional. That came out most in what spawned my citation/bad faith issue with you - when you attempted to justify the false claim that either Lange or the NY Times claimed (in the articles you provided) that Sanders supporters made death threats. I think you might want to step back and inquire as to whether you might have made a baseline bad faith assumption that questions of fraud and irregularities concern a partisan division [*because, as I have repeatedly stated, my interest is primarily constitutional]. And I think the editors totally dropped the ball on this in 2012, which has led to a really uphill battle here. In the long-run there is no question that this will just make Wikipedia look foolish. Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- All that I am saying is that if you are the one to make the consensus determination, you cannot merely state "all of these concerns are illegitimate because...". When the consensus requirements ask that the legitimate concerns be addressed, it does not grant the editor the authority to determine which concerns are legitimate, it affirms Wikipedia policy: the vast majority of concerns have assumed legitimacy. If you close the discussion without addressing these concerns, then rest assured, I will put all my efforts to reversing your course of action. S51438 (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Here I feel confident in saying that I can dismiss them: 1) the foremost and most numerous concern was that sources might be disreputable; well... if you're concerned about drunk driving you don't resurrect prohibition and ban cars... so this issue is not legitimate insofar as we have strict source controls: disreputable sources can be excluded, gray area sources can be thrown to the group and excluded; if it's the only source for that particular claim, the claim could be discarded (pending a reputable source) - resolving any valid overlap of that concern and whether the material should be included on Wikipedia (... ... ...); 2) Omnibus noted (specifically) that it should include anti-Sanders allegations; that's not a legitimate concern, however, it can be addressed insofar as the section would obviously include (NPOV) all allegations of fraud and irregularity; 3) people were concerned with the leading way I asked the question to bait responses; not a legitimate concern with regard to the issue, though; 4) people were concerned I have some nefarious agenda; that violates the good faith standard as you've rightly pointed out, but it also has no bearing on whether any valid allegations should be included and is thus resolved (to the extent that it - like the source complaints - are not bad faith) in that only such allegations would be included; 5) there were several evidentiary concerns (as in that specific components of irregularities and fraud were or were not true - not germane to my thinking about why this should or should not be included): one editor was concerned that there was no allegation that irregularities or fraud was systematic - that isn't true at a sub-state level with particular respect to New York (but more broadly) - but then I cited the chief editor of Bloomberg Politics saying exactly that (I'm a little concerned with him being an exemplar of journalism, but my point is that this type of issue is evidentiary, can be resolved elsewhere, and only bears on the inclusion of the information in Wikipedia to the extent that - as here - [there is no actual question that a claim has been made]; we personally may not agree with this particular claim but that doesn't argue against the inclusion of a citation to the fact that a claim exists; in that sense the concern [against inclusion] is not legitimate); 6) one editor was concerned that the threshold was that campaigns must have filed lawsuits and then backpeddled upon learning the campaigns have joined the DNC's lawsuit; 7) Guy offered no up-and-down yes or no but stated "There should be links to the individual state Wikipedia articles that mention any of this kind of 'fraud'" implying some form of yes with links to the sections in individual states' pages (which I think makes perfect sense). The only unquestionably legitimate concern that needs to be discussed is whether allegations should be interwoven with the text of the main article per Anywikiuser's suggestion - alongside the question of whether valid allegations should be included in an article section or a new article.
- Actually there was an earlier concern before I added the consensus-building section, that basically went that inclusion was appropriate only on individual pages. I think it had to do with not cluttering the main page with mere allegations. From that I suggested the stub-section with links to another page. But either way, while a totally legitimate concern, I think that is resolved (minimally) by just having a separate article. What's the reason for not having an article for what is widely perceived and (thus) reflected in media and campaign announcements. Our personal views on the substance [and rationality] of that perception does not negate the existence of that information [of these allegations in the media etc.]. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- But #6 is a good example of my understanding of this process per the rules you posted for me on the talk page. That editor had a concern... but it was not legitimate. I offered my reasons for it not being legitimate (it was based on a faulty empirical premise). We then resolved the concern - which in that case was very specific. As to the other concerns, and I believe my list above is comprehensive. I'll offer an example on compromising on a legitimate concern: being very generous to Omnibus, and reading his concern as to the neutrality of the allegations, his concern is totally legitimate - but it is resolved by simply being comprehensive in our inclusion of valid allegations...
- So again I'm not sure what legitimate concerns that actually leaves; please tell me if my logic has failed somewhere. I believe most of the concerns are essentially similar - concerns that if we allow the inclusion of fraud allegations, people might cite sources badly. Well... they do that anyway on Wikipedia, so we need quality control... but that's not a legitimate concern [as to whether that information should be included on Wikipedia if proper citations existed]. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I made the mistake of assuming good faith until it wore me out. I should have realized after spending so many hours bending to ridiculous demands and unreasonable objections that there is fundamentally something wrong with the current way that wikipedia functions. There is clear bias going against NPOV but somehow through consensus a Non neutral POV is being pushed and its being made to look legitimate, and if this happens in other parts of wikipedia then that would mean this is not an encyclopedia, but a dictionary controlling thought by controlling the public's access to information, which is supposed to only be carried out by the media. I figure Ill try taking this to arbitration, but something tells me wikipedia is more concerned with some silly obsession with consensus then it is with accurately depicting reality. Also, I've stopped assuming good faith on the part of most of the editors on that page, with maybe the exception of the s12345 guy, even though he doesn't really seem to understand what's happening since he accidently keeps pushing to support the Wikipedia:Systemic_bias of the crowd. Kswikiaccount (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Here I feel confident in saying that I can dismiss them: 1) the foremost and most numerous concern was that sources might be disreputable; well... if you're concerned about drunk driving you don't resurrect prohibition and ban cars... so this issue is not legitimate insofar as we have strict source controls: disreputable sources can be excluded, gray area sources can be thrown to the group and excluded; if it's the only source for that particular claim, the claim could be discarded (pending a reputable source) - resolving any valid overlap of that concern and whether the material should be included on Wikipedia (... ... ...); 2) Omnibus noted (specifically) that it should include anti-Sanders allegations; that's not a legitimate concern, however, it can be addressed insofar as the section would obviously include (NPOV) all allegations of fraud and irregularity; 3) people were concerned with the leading way I asked the question to bait responses; not a legitimate concern with regard to the issue, though; 4) people were concerned I have some nefarious agenda; that violates the good faith standard as you've rightly pointed out, but it also has no bearing on whether any valid allegations should be included and is thus resolved (to the extent that it - like the source complaints - are not bad faith) in that only such allegations would be included; 5) there were several evidentiary concerns (as in that specific components of irregularities and fraud were or were not true - not germane to my thinking about why this should or should not be included): one editor was concerned that there was no allegation that irregularities or fraud was systematic - that isn't true at a sub-state level with particular respect to New York (but more broadly) - but then I cited the chief editor of Bloomberg Politics saying exactly that (I'm a little concerned with him being an exemplar of journalism, but my point is that this type of issue is evidentiary, can be resolved elsewhere, and only bears on the inclusion of the information in Wikipedia to the extent that - as here - [there is no actual question that a claim has been made]; we personally may not agree with this particular claim but that doesn't argue against the inclusion of a citation to the fact that a claim exists; in that sense the concern [against inclusion] is not legitimate); 6) one editor was concerned that the threshold was that campaigns must have filed lawsuits and then backpeddled upon learning the campaigns have joined the DNC's lawsuit; 7) Guy offered no up-and-down yes or no but stated "There should be links to the individual state Wikipedia articles that mention any of this kind of 'fraud'" implying some form of yes with links to the sections in individual states' pages (which I think makes perfect sense). The only unquestionably legitimate concern that needs to be discussed is whether allegations should be interwoven with the text of the main article per Anywikiuser's suggestion - alongside the question of whether valid allegations should be included in an article section or a new article.
- All that I am saying is that if you are the one to make the consensus determination, you cannot merely state "all of these concerns are illegitimate because...". When the consensus requirements ask that the legitimate concerns be addressed, it does not grant the editor the authority to determine which concerns are legitimate, it affirms Wikipedia policy: the vast majority of concerns have assumed legitimacy. If you close the discussion without addressing these concerns, then rest assured, I will put all my efforts to reversing your course of action. S51438 (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- And I missed your main point here. Your baseline assumption was essentially that I was making a pro-Sanders argument, where I've repeatedly stated my interest is primarily constitutional. That came out most in what spawned my citation/bad faith issue with you - when you attempted to justify the false claim that either Lange or the NY Times claimed (in the articles you provided) that Sanders supporters made death threats. I think you might want to step back and inquire as to whether you might have made a baseline bad faith assumption that questions of fraud and irregularities concern a partisan division [*because, as I have repeatedly stated, my interest is primarily constitutional]. And I think the editors totally dropped the ball on this in 2012, which has led to a really uphill battle here. In the long-run there is no question that this will just make Wikipedia look foolish. Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- "I find your actions simply appalling", you said to me, as you repeatedly ignored my request for you to actually quote the information you were including based on fraudulent citations. I'm still waiting... Of course you argued that you didn't need to provide valid sources, presuming... I guess... that my extremely straightforward, nonjudgmental question was in bad faith (?). You clarified that viewpoint here when noting that I had not read an article you failed to cite to: "Do I need to provide a citation?" I explained that you did and we're still waiting since that article also did not actually include the information you alleged (that was the second or third time... when is bad faith a valid inference?). But when the going gets rough... double down: "I'm honestly in shock that someone could go to such great lengths to avoid what is obviously true." Once again... I was 100% correct and you are implying... or perhaps just stating outright... that I am a liar. Ironic in the true sense. But clearly that cannot be the case since you are "commanded to assume 'good faith.'" You use lofty words; I don't think they quite fit your actions here. I think you had no intention of allowing uncomfortable information to be presented and the record shows that you were willing to misrepresent the truth to achieve that goal; and you did achieve that goal. At first you participated (heavily) in editing the fraud section - in an increasingly overtly partisan manner over the course of its tenure (as I have cited to on the Talk page) - at the end of which you deleted the entire section because "We cannot allow potentially contentious information to be included without a consensus, a rule proscribed by Wikipedia." I think you basically defaulted from a strategy of "correction," to a strategy of deletion and stonewalling within your consensus process. But I am commanded to assume good faith. Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I must state that Wikipedians are not only asked, but commanded to assume good faith. When an editor lodges a concern, they very well may be trying to subvert the process of adding additional information, but it is incorrect for us to assume this. When there was a months-log debate over the addition of the popular vote, every concern lodged against it was considered legitimate and addressed in the consensus determination. I think it is bad etiquette to dismiss most of these concerns as illegitimate because it goes against the central premise of Wikipedia: we all wish to provide information as fairly and accurately as possible. S51438 (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey
I guess all their harassment of you drove you away. Anyways if you come back take a look at a few things. I found this which shows that in 2008 they considered some random site to be a good enough source to count the superdelegates. Also there's been new info showing that multiple highly notable and verifiable sources have said superdelegates should not be counted until the DNC at the end of the month. One of those sources is the director of the DNC or the chairwoman or something like that. Anyways, I hope you feel better buddy. You put up with a whole mountain of everest amount of harassment and dealth with it way beyond honorably. Kswikiaccount (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)