Talk:Economic fascism/twoversions

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form, any comments regarding this page should be directed to its talk page

Heading off edit war

To avoid the edit war between RJII and... well, everyone else, I've used an {{Ambiguous redirect}} template. This gives equal billing to those who want the article as a redirect and those who want it as a separate article. Firebug 04:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen this before. It looks like a refined Template:Twoversions. Jkelly 04:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new creation, just produced by me. I'm discussing it on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Firebug 04:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the disambiguation

Note that 12 people wanted the article gone completely, 11 wanted to keep, and 5 to merge/redirect. Making {{Ambiguous redirect}} the primary article destination gives equal time to all sides. RJII cannot claim that a majority of people wanted the article to stay as it was, so his claim that I am acting against consensus is false. Firebug 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that's called a lack of consensus. When there is a lack of consensus, as the adminstrator pointed out, the default is "keep." [1] I am not saying you are acting "against consensus." I am saying you're acting without a consensus. Disruptive crap like this is why your attempt to get votes to become an adminstrator failed.[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firebug You don't have a grasp of the policies of Wikipedia, and I frankly think you couldn't care less what the policies are. RJII 04:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of consensus means "don't delete". It doesn't mean "keep in its present form forever". I do believe in consensus. I also believe in being bold and, when absolutely necessary (but only then, and only with USER level powers!) WP:IAR. Firebug 04:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've also asked that the templated version be locked. Firebug 04:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of consensus means don't delete or redirect. It doesn't mean don't edit, of course. Redirecting is not editing. Being "bold" is fine if no one complaints about it. But, I and another editor have redirected it back. Obviously you don't have a consensus to redirect the article. Keep it up. I'm building up material for an RFC concerning you. I know you were hoping to wear a bright and shiny adminstrator badge one day, but now everybody knows now exactly why you wanted adminship. RJII 04:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirecting is not editing." Of course it is. It's no different than any other edit. Open whatever RFCs you want. My patience with your repeated personal attacks against good editors is wearing thin. No one else will be driven away from Wikipedia because of you. This is going to arbitration due to your utter inability to take the RFC process seriously. (CLOWNS?!) Firebug 04:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You start an RFC about you, then I start and RFC about you. Then you take me to arbitration, then I take you to arbitration. Sounds fun. Your behavior concerning this article is plenty of grounds for arbitration against you. So, you want to take me to arbitration for not taking the RFC seriously? LOL. I can't wait. RJII 05:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree completely that the article has a POV problem, there is the possibility of a NPOV article. That is why I supported keeping and improving, and added a NPOV tag.

Consensus to delete is at least 66% (arguably 75%). Even if you count the merge votes together there is only 64% - and this is not the answer anyway.

I hold that redirecting without consensus is vandalism. Especially here when the article being directed to does not contain the information in the redirected article because a large amount of information is lost. Doing this without consensus is vandalism.

The wiki community decided that the article should stay. Redirecting the article immediately after that is an affront to wikipedia. I call on Firebug to apologise and behave properly. jucifer 00:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page history concern... page protection?

The current situation isn't really tenable. We're going to have a history of authorship/GFDL mess as soon as someone edits the article at this location. It's fixable, but a pain. My temptation is to lock it until this gets sorted out. Is there a compelling reason for me to not protect this article and the /article version against editing until there is consensus? Not that the Talk page history is going to be fun either... Jkelly 05:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually asked for this on WP:RFP. I had hoped that the template would end the edit war, but RJII wants to fight no matter what. Firebug 05:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Lock economic fascism in place. I would like to continue working on it, but Firebug is really being disruptive and making it impossible. RJII 05:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is being proposed is to lock the {{Ambiguous redirect}} template in place for Economic fascism, and also lock the article at Economic fascism/Article. Firebug 05:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that User:RJII is following the conversation just fine. In any case, I'm not proposing some sort of long-term protection here. I'd like to see this situation cleared up more quickly than that. Jkelly 05:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jkelly, you locked it so the economic fascism article can't even be viewed. I object to that. That's not what I consented to. Are you willing to lock the article so it can be viewed? (I'm hoping this is not a POV thing from you). RJII 05:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can be viewed. It is one of the two links on the template. If you want to link directly to it, use Economic fascism/Article. Firebug 05:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both are protected now. User:RJII, by my count you were at three reverts anyway, and so having the wrong version up for a few minutes shouldn't be a big deal. I think that more input is needed here. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, and I don't think that having the pages in this form is a good short-term solution, let alone a long-term one. Anybody have any off-the-top-of-their-head ideas for compromise? Jkelly 05:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure. RJII is a POV-pusher, and I do not think that he is interested in working towards a good NPOV article, but rather towards pushing his own economic and political views (namely, that economic intervention == fascism). The template was my attempt to compromise between the "keep" and "redirect" school of thought. I agree it isn't optimal in the long run. Firebug 05:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I certainly don't think the normal policy should be compromised --that an article stays if there's no consensus to deleted it or redirect it. So...I don't know. What kind of comprise could there be? Firebug wants to compromise the policy by bypassing the ethical procedure of obtaining a consensus to delete or redirect an article. If he thinks there's something POV about the article why doesn't he edit it. I can tell you without reservation I've tried to write this article as NPOV as I could. Firebug simply doesn't want the article to exist and won't accept the vote that was made on it. Maybe take him to arbitration or something? I don't know. RJII 05:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to avert an edit war, not start one. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. Firebug 05:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was and is no edit war. There is you trying to redirect the article. Redirecting an article is not editing an article. I and another person have put the article back in place after you redirected it without a consensus. Looks like arbitration is the way to go unless you can be civilized. If you think there's something about the article that is POV then edit it. RJII 05:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the only one who redirected the article. Mihnea and 172 also did so. You reverted all of these edits. And a war over whether an article should be a redirect or a full page is an edit war. Redirecting is not equivalent to deletion just because it is sometimes suggested on AFD. Firebug 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But they stopped. An adminstrator warned them to stop. You're still going at it. Ok, I'm now going to look up how to file an Arbitration... RJII 05:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which administrator? I am aware of no such incident. Firebug 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

172, also if you would like the article to be redirected attempt to get a consensus on the talk page to do so. I like all people support being bold in certain situations but doing so without a consensus is against policy and is going to just lead to an edit war which should be avoided if at all possible. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC) RJII 05:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to stop or am I taking you to Arbitration? RJII 05:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to capitulate to a POV-pushing bully. This nonsense stops here. Firebug 05:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you got it. Arbitration it is. Say goodbye to your dreams of adminship. LOL. RJII 05:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Staus quo?

I'm tempted to suggest status quo ante bellum. Move the article back here, move this talk to an archive, and let those editors who are working on improving this article (and I am including User:Firebug in that group) hash out whether it should be an article or a redirect through normal Wikipedia procedure. If the concern is that the article is a POV-fork, I don't think forking it again is good precedent. Jkelly 05:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the normal procedure to me. We'll see if Firebug continues to disregard Wikipedia policy. Actually, he just said that he's not going to capitulate. So, I guess Arbitration is the only alternative. This mediation didn't work. He's incorrigible. RJII 05:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let us see what User:Firebug, or anyone else for that matter, has to say about it in response to me. I realize that there is an ongoing dispute-resolution process happening at the moment, but let us also stop accusing each other of bad faith while we're discussing things, okay? Jkelly 05:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's see what he says. RJII 06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, while the question of whether Wikipedians as a whole want an article or a redirect is still unsettled, the current situation (protecting the template on Economic fascism) is optimal. Firebug 06:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it optimal. However, with one editor arguing for one thing and one other editor arguing for the other, a sort-of black-and-white choice, and no outside involvement, I'm going to list this at WP:PP with a note about what is going on. If someone other than User:RJII wants this page back at the article, they can go to WP:RFU. Anyone doing anything should keep in mind that editing the article will complicate the history and should proceed with caution. Jkelly 07:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TwoVersions

I would like to explain to USer:Firebug why I think that this set-up is not a good solution. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/November_2005#Template:Twoversions for a similar template-driven forking set-up. I find the arguments there convincing. Furthermore, my understanding is that this article's development and content are a concern for a number of people, but that conversation is stalled while we three try to figure out what to do with this unusual situation. Without any outside comment on this situation, I intend to carry out my proposal above unless I hear something other than "I think the current situation is optimal" as an argument for not doing so. Jkelly 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that reverting to the article (rather than the template) would constitute giving in to POV-pushing bullying on RJII's part. Remember that a total of 3 users (not just me) have put a redirect in here since the AfD closed, and RJII is the only one (as far as I am aware) who has strongly objected to this. Frankly, even using the template is a compromise to his bullying tactics. What really needs to happen is that Arbcom has to handle the situation as they have done in the past with other POV-pushers - banning him from all articles related to economic and policital systems for a year. Then the reasonable editors can all get together and work toward consensus. If RJII is out of the picture, I have no doubt that we can work out something reasonable. Firebug 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not the only one. Jucifer reverted back one of your disruptions: "(Your edit caused significant loss of info. This page recently had an AfD with no consensus therefore KEEP. you must Put it up for AfD again if you want to REDIRECT.) And, you're the one that needs to be banned from Wikipedia. Anyone who has studied my editing can determine that I am not a "POV pusher"; I'm merely a reporter of information. Besides, there is no rule against "POV pushing," as long as what is said is true and sourceable. Your total lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy becomes clearer and clearer all the time. I repeat again, this is why your request to be an admin failed. You don't understand Wikipedia policy, and when you do understand it you disregard it. Believe me, you will be forced to "give in" to adhering to Wikipedia policy. This article will be opened back up and you're not going redirect it without a consensus. RJII 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another resolution attempt

Edit conflict. As long as User:RJII obeys the rules around here, he should be free to work on articles, including this one. User:RJII is even free to "push" a POV, as long as it is with the knowledge (and, ideally, desire) that the article should always be working towards a verifiable and neutral end result. For the next little while User:RJII cannot revert to the article version anyway, because of WP:3RR. I would, of course, prefer that nobody does any reverting at all and this whole issue gets talked out here. But it would be both heavy-handed of me and setting what I feel is a bad precedent to just leave this article locked in this set-up. Perhaps the best way I can communicate my perspective is to say that I do have faith in normal Wikipedia procedure of discussion and consensus editing. I don't have that faith in this forking arrangement. I am not going to leave this whole thing locked until ArbCom comes to some decision. Even if I were so inclined, some very large numbers of other admins would over-rule that.

Question to User:Firebug : If I get rid of this arrangement and unprotect, do you plan to move the article again?

Question to User:RJII : If I get rid of this arrangement and unprotect, will you refrain from reverting anything until at least one other editor expresses agreement with you on the Talk page of the article?

I am open to the response "I am unwilling to make any such commitment" from either editor and interpret that as a lack of interest in resolution. Jkelly 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. Agreement with me about what? RJII 23:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that, if some editor turns the article into a redirect, you won't revert until some other editor agrees that change should be reverted. Jkelly 23:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense. Juicifer already put the page back after firebug reverted it. So that's two people. I've talked to him and he'll also be joining in the arbitration to stop firebug from doing this. The burden is on the person that does something drastic like that to get a consensus. He saw the vote, and he knows that others don't want the page reverted. If you unlock the page and he redirects it again, I, Juicifer, or someone else, will put it back in place. That's the way it's supposed to work. RJII 00:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept the following solution:

Unlock the page.
For the duration of the ArbCom case, neither me nor User:RJII may edit Economic fascism, or any of its subpages, in ANY WAY.
Anyone OTHER than the two of us is free to edit as usual in whatever manner they wish, as long as they don't break Wikipedia rules. They can decide whether to make it a redirect, an article, the template, whatever.
If either me or RJII violates the temporary prohibition on editing Economic fascism, whoever violates it can be blocked for up to 24 hours by any admin.

Frankly, I'm loath to make any concessions at all to a serial violator of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV, but I'm willing to do this in order to show good faith, and as a token of appreciation to User:Jkelly, who really doesn't deserve to deal with all this crap. Firebug 00:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sacrificing my rights in any way to you. I have a right to edit the article. You're going to be forced to act ethically and stop redirecting it without a consensus. RJII 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that I am willing to compromise on this issue and you aren't. Firebug 01:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Firebug, I would not (and should not) have the authority to enforce your proposed penalties. It would have to be a gentlemen's agreement, and it does not seem likely that agreement would happen. Jkelly 01:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD to vote on a redirect

Firebug, you should agree to stop redirecting this article until it has been through another AfD. You should both then agree to bury the hatchet and cancel this silly arbitration nonsence. jucifer 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just me. At least two other editors have done the same thing. Firebug 01:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you want the content gone you MUST put it up for AfD. Go ahead. You CANNOT delete the article by the back door like this, especially after an AfD. jucifer 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors redirecting and two editors reverting back. What does that tell you? NO CONSENSUS. Don't redirect an article without consensus. There was a vote and what did that tell you? No consensus, which, according to policy, defaults to "keep." You've refused to honor that result of that vote. Why did you participate in the vote if you weren't going to abide by the results? What's that say about your integrity and credibility? It says a lot. RJII 01:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Clarification

Redirection is not vandalism. Redirection is not deletion. The idea that WP:AFD is a vote on whether an article is redirected or not is neither a good idea nor actual policy. What is going on here is an edit war over two valid directions for an article to take. The vote at WP:AFD means that there is no consensus to delete the article. That has been settled, and no one here has discussed it further. If the parties here believe that editor's votes at AfD make them sympathetic to their argument, those parties may be contacted and express an editorial opinion here, just like any other editor. Jkelly 01:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is an edit war over "two valid directions for the article to take." firebug doesn't want the article to exist at all, so he's been auto-directing anyone who tries to access the article to a different article. If you want to say having an article with words and paragraphs in it and an article with just the words "#REDIRECT corporatism" is two different directions for an article, fine. But that's really strange to say. That simply makes the article unviewable --it's not another version of the article --it's a redirection to a different article. RJII 02:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that User:Firebug argues that this article is a POV fork of Corporatism. We redirect articles about the same subject to the most common name, ideally merging good information from the redirected one (if any), all the time. My point is that this doesn't need to be a disruptive editorial decision, and that it is incorrect to call it either deletion or vandalism. Jkelly 02:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what you're saying. But let's face it, he in fact deleted the contents of economic fascism and replaced the contents with a "#REDIRECT" message. He deleted the contents of the article. When you do a redirect, for all practical purposes, the article has been deleted (all the contents have been deleted) --it's not viewable without accessing the history. RJII 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely that if I had put as much work into an article as you have into this one and someone came along and redirected it, I'd be pretty unhappy about it. It's no mystery to me why you think that a redirect isn't a good decision, I just want to keep language like "article deletion in spite of consensus" and "vandalism" out of the discussion. Jkelly 17:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Situation now

The article has been protected in this version for substantially longer than I had envisioned. I hope that we have passed the worst of the heat in the discussion, and intend to move the article back to this location and move this Talk to an archive. With the prospect of an arbitration case, I suggest that both parties in this dispute have a strong motivation to not continue edit-warring. I want to be very clear that the fact that I am putting the article (as opposed to redirect) version here should not be taken as any kind of endorsement of it. I will, in fact, be irked if I ever read something like "User:Jkelly put the article up, so that's one more person who thinks it should be an article". I would like to encourage everyone involved, in future discussion, to attempt to always say the least inflammatory thing they can while getting their point across. Jkelly 17:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]