User talk:Davidrusher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Conflict of interest[edit]

[1]Your contributions are welcome, however you cann ot self promote due to an obvious conflict of interest. thanks.--Hu12 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the various sections in wikipedia regarding conflict of interest, spam, etc. It is not necessarily a conflict of interest to insert one-self, if one has done what he/she said. I am, in fact, an original co-founder of ACFC. I have a photo of all of us taken at the founding ceremony at the National Press Club in Washington to prove it. I will email it to you for verification. send me an email to drusher@swbell.net and I will send it to you. I do not see how historical fact can be regarded as a conflict of interest under any circumstances.
If you check my MND blog for my CV, you will see that I am, in fact, a major mover and shaker in the movement for about 18 years. I have been in Time Magazine, brought about the unanimous rejection of the U.N. Secretary General's report by the Third Committee, etc etc. Do a google search on David R. Usher and you will see I am published in many places.
Mark Rosenthal added my name as a co-founder, but this was removed too. I could invite a few hundred other men's activists to do the same. I request you restore this, otherwise I will have to challenge it.
As you get to know me, over time, you will find that I am not a glory-seeker: I do not get paid one dime for anything I do in the men's movement, and I do not sell anything either. I am one of the leading thinkers and analysts of the contemporary mens movement. I noticed the men's rights section is extremely thin, mostly loaded with things feminists put there, so I decided it's time for somebody to straighten it out to be a reasonable reflection of the topic. I maintain a high level of objectivity in everything I do. In my articles, you will see they are heavily footnoted to reliable sources. 17:15, 25 December 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidrusher (talkcontribs)
The most relevant policy is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Another one that may be relevant is WP:NPOV, regarding undue weight being given to any particular view in an article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some notes about Wikipedia policies and processes[edit]

  • Please follow rules for indentation, on talk pages, per Wikipedia:Talk page. This helps a great deal in understanding who said what. Related to that, please use four tildes (~'s), or click on "Sign your name, in the fourth section from the bottom of the editing window, to add a date/time/signature to all of your postings on talk pages, per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. This includes your own user talk page.
  • Please (re)read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, particularly Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views and Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. Your postings at Talk:Men's rights contain a large number of violations of this guideline, which I can list specifically if you have questions regarding this; at this point, I am simply asking that you stop.
  • Please do not make policy proposals on talk pages, as you did with your posting that There should be some restrictions as to who can edit what, or some way to authenticate the POV of the editor. Allowing feminists (who do not have an NPOV) to edit the core of the men's rights section would be tantamount to allowing the KKK to edit the core of wiki holocaust section. We should not permit historical revisionists to redefine history or reality: however, their POV should be permitted in the critics section. New policies should be proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), per Wikipedia:How to create policy.
  • Please (re)read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. In particular, the following -- Since there are so few real writers and thinkers in the Men's movement, and where myself, Steve Baskerville, and Glenn Sacks hold the same view, this position must be accepted as being the valid position of the MRM unless some other legitimate leader of the men's movement suggests this section is somehow incorrect -- is not in any way compatable with WP:OWN. You either need to revise your thinking on this point or you risk being labeled as a disruptive editor.
  • Please do not discuss what you consider to be failings or limitations of other editors, such as Now, clear your head of what has been programmed into it during your years of upbringing in a feminist society. First, as mentioned above, this is a violation of talk page guidelines, since it is not about improving specific wording of the article. Second, it is a borderline violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility; it's quite easy for other editors to find such comments patronizing at best and insulting at worst.

If you have any questions on the above, please post a note on this talk page or at User talk:John Broughton. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for correction[edit]

You just accused another editor of deleting a section of the article.[2], and then proceeded on the talk page to discuss what you considered to be the editor's motivation for doing so. In fact, the section was deleted by an entirely different editor. [3] I strongly recommend that you review Wikipedia:How to read an article history and that you correct your error by following WP:TPN, which provides an example of how to do such a correction.

I again note that you are not following Wikipedia rules, by posting to talk pages such statements as I WILL NOT permit feminists to censor or otherwise emasculate the men's movement into being what feminists want it to be. Wikipedia talk pages are not, I repeat, not to be used as a soapbox for personal views. I warn you that you are risking being labeled as a disruptive editor, with the consequences that such a label carries, if you violate Wikipedia rules which you have been clearly been notified about. -- John Broughton ☎☎ 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to heed John's messages and re-evaluate your present course of action. Please discuss rather than accuse other editors or make personal attacks and uncivil comments. I trust you will find all of John's references of policies up above to be helpful and applicable. Please note that failing to take note of them and continuing to cause disruption will not be tolerated, no matter who you are. You are welcome to edit at Wikipedia as long as you follow our basic policies, which isn't very hard to do in my opinion. They can all be boiled down to what is found at Wikipedia's five pillars. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your last posting[edit]

I have removed your last posting from Talk:Men's rights because of the large number of problems with it, which I will discuss, point by point. You are invited to review this commentary and repost those parts that in fact are appropriate.

  • First, you posted it in the middle of section. Per Wikipedia:Talk pages, postings are supposed to be chronological

----------------

  • Second, you somehow have gotten the idea that you should separate your conversation from others by using dashes. You're wrong. You use indentation.

Since yesterday, somebody modified this discussion topice to claim that objections are by two editors. I don't see another editor cited. Where is the rest of the invisible jury?

  • I will review this and correct it - I apparently made an error in that it was the same editor commenting twice. You could have fixed this yourself; an editor is free to change the heading of a section where it is wrong.

On the Deletion: Who is the mystery person who deleted it? According to History, it was deleted by an anonymous user, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights&diff=103015221&oldid=103013641 at ip address 129.67.43.240.

  • The issue, as you well know, is that you accused another editor - not 129.67.43.240 - of doing this deletion. I am still looking for you to apologize for your error and make the correction I recommend you do. As for who the "mystery person" is, I have no idea, and it doesn't matter - anonymous editors have the right to edit the article as much as registered users like you and me.

The identity of this person does not resolve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/129.67.43.240

  • I'm not sure what you're saying - possibly that you don't realize that anonymous editors (someone not logged in) can edit an article?
Looks like somebody did. check the history for yourself. Davidrusherdavidrusher

On RS: Citing specifically: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking".

  • Thank you for citing policy.

The section I wrote on SSM meets this test, and then some.

  • That is an assertion that is not backed by anything. I have asked you, and I will ask you again, to use footnotes to document each sentence when you write about controversial matters. That will enable other authors to check the cited source to confirm that it does in fact support what has been said.

As the leading analyst on SSM and Men's rights, this exact position has been published by multiple, independent publications, including.

  • The phrase "leading analyst", which you call yourself (without any citation), and the phrases used in the policy you cite, "professional researcher" and "professional journalist", are not the same thing. A professional researcher is an academic; a professional journalist writes full-time for newspapers and such. Please thoroughly document any claims you have that you in fact fall into one of these two categories before citing yourself any further as a reliable source.
Please stop belittling or insulting me. This is unacceptable. I have clearly stated my credentials in this movement. Professional does not require that I do it for a living. I am a well-known writer, published in many credible and well-known publication. I have done a lot of research, and was the one who did the research to debunk the U.N. Secretary General's Report on Domestic Violence, which subsequently caused the U.N. Third Committee to reject the report. If you give me your phone number, I'll have Steve Baskerville (President of ACFC) call you. That is end of this nonsense. Davidrusher

Two of these publications are run by Town Hall folks, and I don't have posting rights on any of the below. I send them pieces and they publish them if they like them.

See:

http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/dusher110706a.htm
http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=1635_0_1_0_M
http://www.americandaily.com/article/16373
http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david11.htm
http://www.thereaganwing.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&page_id=393
  • I do not find any of these like-of-a-kind websites to demonstrate the kind of editorial oversight that a national, subscriber-based publication engages it. These appear to be highly partisan sites; that they may chose to reject pieces submitted to them does not make them "credible".
NewsWithViews has 50,000 readers per day. All these websites have major readership. They are not blogs. Human Events (listed in a cite elsewhere) has a lot of editorial oversight, and my exact SSM POV is published there: See "Fathers Forced From Families Fuel Hyper-Feminist Family" [4]
Conservatives have found my arguments quite credible. This does not make my view partisan -- it is a reflection of the fact that Democrats tend to strongly support radical feminism. Everything in these articles goes to the issue of SSM -- and there is nothing partisan in the articles. Where the articles are published is immaterial, so long as they are respected publications.
"Editorial Oversight: I do not know of one major print newspaper that isn't essentially run by feminists. I gave up writing for newspapers a decade ago because it was impossible to get anything printed. I could not get anything published of any value -- simply articles bemoaning the death of fatherhood. Being feminist does not constitute "editorial oversight", it constitutes censorship. That I have not had luck getting past feminist censors does not constitute a case for rejection or a claim of partisanship. Davidrusher 08:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)davidrusher
  • Also, please use asterisks or indentation to separate out a list of the type you made; otherwise, the wiki software mashes all the lines together.

That I wrote the section does not disqualify it from Wiki.

  • To restate: when something reads like a violation of WP:NOR, it absolutely needs to be source. (And we call this project "Wikipedia", not "Wiki".)
Why are you nitpicking me? You are looking for any excuse in the book to shoot me out the door. If you can't handle abbreviations, that is not my problem. Davidrusherdavidrusher

Citing the "convenient" parts of wiki standards, while ignoring the parts that back inclusion of things that an editor apparently disagrees with, does not constitute a case for disclusion.

  • As best as I can interpret this, you're saying that for some reason you feel that you are authorized to ignore WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. If that is your final answer, you should stop editing Wikipedia. We don't need editors who believe they are above the rules.
It is not reasonable to hold me to a higher standard than is being applied to the feminism section, particularly where it is abundantly clear that one or more editors are applying the rules to enforce their personal POV. If you attempt to do this, you are admitting that Wiki rules are, in fact, arbitrary and to be applied for censorship purposes. Davidrusherdavidrusher

I have been straightforward about everything, and we have one editor who admittedly personally disagrees with the SSM posting.

  • No, actually, you have four editors who disagree with the SSM posting - the anonymous editor who deleted it [5], Shimgray, who protected the deletion [6], Calil, who tagged the section as dubious in the first place (18 January), and me (as I stated on the talk page). Please count better in the future.

It is a structural fact that if any two women can marry, have children, and collect loads of child support, that at least two heterosexual men will structurally be denied the social construct of marriage, while being forced to support a family they have no right to be a part of or raise children thereof. There is no-one who can contest this -- it is a simple cause-effect analysis just like describing what happens when somebody lets the air out of your tires. This is precisely why the majority of the MRM opposes SSM.

  • I again remind you that using the talk page as a soapbox is a violation of Wikipedia rules. The discussion of the SSM section is not about its content; it's about the need to source its information.
May I remind everyone that when this section was tagged "nonsense", the editors requested that I further clarify the analysis. As I pointed out elsewhere, the section on Feminism has vast sections of uncited and unchallenged text. Where editors who have commented that the section is "nonsense" and other descriptions proving they simply disagree on the merits, it is quite clear the rejection is over POV; and the arbitrary application of Wiki rules to "cite each sentence" and hold me to a much higher standard than that being applied to the feminist section is fully improper. Davidrusherdavidrusher

Since this section was deleted by an anonymous person, I am restoring it.

  • As discussed above, you have completely misunderstood Wikipedia rules with regard to the rights on anonymous editors to change articles. Your reverting an edit on such grounds alone is a violation of WP:AGF.
I am not an anonymous user. You know exactly who I am, my email address, and my home phone number. Please stop harassing me. It is quite inappropriate. Davidrusherdavidrusher

There is no valid reason to contest it. If anyone wants to contest it, please initiate a dispute -- and be sure have some real good ammunition other than personal beliefs or half-cited Wiki rules to back yourself up.

  • Wikipedi editors who violate consensus - at this point, four editors oppose this material being in the article - are at risk of getting blocked. More to the point, I am not the only one who has been telling you to follow Wikipedia rules with regards to citations. May I suggest that you give a bit more credence to the opinions of more experienced editors before you offer to get into a fight?

As I said, I reject the attempt to hold me to a higher standard of citations that wiki holds the vast uncited POV sections in feminism. Either challenge that section, or rest your case. I will put my cites in when the block is removed. Davidrusherdavidrusher


I am writing an article to invite leaders of the MRM movement to clean up this section. I would strongly recommend that folks who do not understand it, or who have political reasons to disagree with it, to stand aside.

  • I am glad that you have (apparently) dropped your claim that only editors who meet certain criteria should be able to edit the article. Regardless of that, these two sentences are again in violation of Wikipedia rules - they have nothing to do with the content of the article, or discussing that content with other editors to improve it. Please do not repost these to the talk page.
Sorry, but if you think Wiki should be run as a feminist enterprise, I have no choice but to request assistance from leaders of the movement to help fix this section. The consistent exorbitant demands for citations of a couple of editors, and the POV vandalism of the SSM section by at least one editor who admits his personal POV conflict, requires a call for the movement to help straighten out an editorial problem. While you might not like this, I will not sit by idly while being intimidated by editors who have admitted to holding feminist POV's. You can resolve this problem immediately by stopping this nonsense and letting me post my citations. Davidrusherdavidrusher

davidrusher

  • You still don't seem to understand how to sign your name properly. Using four tildes adds the date and time to your signature. That's often important in following the sequence of who said what. -- John Broughton ☎☎ 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your column at MND.[edit]

Hi, we appear to have a significant problem on our hands here. Your column here is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. If you'd like to continue editing here, I'd like to see you post a comment at the end of your column, retracting your call for an attack on Wikipedia. I understand that you're frustrated about your experiences here, but violating policy is not the solution. We have dispute resolution procedures here, and you need to work through those. I look forward to your response. Please let me know if you have any questions. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


This is a material misrepresentation of fact. My article does not call for an attack. It is a call for help from other leaders of this movement to help fix the Men's Rights page, and to help fight POV vandalism that is evidenced by the behavior of some editors. Wikipedia is not immune to public criticism where it is deserved.

Davidrusher 07:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC) davidrusher

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you indefinitely (under the no legal threats policy) for this legal threat. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


I challenge this block for the following reasons: Copied are emails sent to MrDarcy:


Email #1

I request the blocking be removed immediately. My entry did not threaten a lawsuit. It said that it "may be cause" for a lawsuit against Wiki (editors cannot be sued, but Wiki sure can). There is nothing threatening about this -- it points out the legal realities involved.

It is quite obvious this block is an attempt to avoid the issues involved. To date, no editor has questioned or disputed the logic of the discussion, rather, a couple have attempted to throw all sorts of wiki rules that either do not apply or are clearly being applied in a very arbitrary manner.

Quote: "Now, I state this to all editors: you WILL NOT play games to keep the Men's Rights and Father's Rights sections nothing more than a feminist misrepresentation of the movement. To do so is a violation of all academic principles, and may be cause for a lawsuit. If Wiki is not going to discipline feminist editors who insist on forcing their POV on this movement, then we will give them a good reason to do so." EndQuote

I would strongly suggest you work with the leaders of the men's movement. If you read my call for papers, it was quite reasonable. If Wiki will not permit the men's movement to define itself in Wiki, which is all I have been doing (and what others will be doing), then this is a prima-facie case of feminist POV bias and intentional censorship at Wiki.

I am quite accustomed to dealing with feminist censorship, and know how to handle this problem from here should you fail to be reasonable. I'm a very reasonable guy, but I am quite capable of playing hardball politics when dealing with unreasonable situations.

I have PDF'd the current discussion page in case someone decides to erase the discussion. I am logging everything for future articles.

Last, I will be following up with leaders of the FR movement to see if their edits are being improperly rejected. If editors are going to stop us from fixing the page about our own movement, simply because we decided to come fix it, then Wiki will see some very embarassing articles. If this is the route you would like to go, I am more than willing to hit it from the top down.


Email #2

I have not seen Wikipedia:No legal threats ( I am a newbie since December).

In any case, I did not threaten to sue anybody. As a men's rights leader and Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, I often make observations or comments that relate to any particular situation. In this case, if Wiki insists on censoring men's rights, somebody is sure to file a suit sooner or later. There is nothing threatening about pointing out the obvious.

However, since this sort of analytical statement makes people nervous, I will avoid making this sort of comment in the future.

The policy states:

"If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved – one way or the other – to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organisation, the Wikimedia Foundation.

If you make legal threats you may be blocked from editing so as not to exacerbate the matter through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding."

I have not taken legal action, nor did I threaten it. I said "To do so is a violation of all academic principles, and may be cause for a lawsuit." (third person)

So either a temporary or permanent block is invalid.

As for me, as a 20-year advocate for men's rights. I came to Wiki to help make this section more accurate, in good faith, and was surprised to find a fair amount of POV interference by editors of this section.

I will stand firm against arbitrary censorship, advocate for this section to be a fair representation of the men's movement, and expect editors to be fair and reasonable in their objections.


Email #3

Mr Darcy,

Your block is a violation of Wiki Policy:

Wikipedia:Blocking policy When blocking may not be used

Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. Also consider filing a Request for comment on use of admin privileges.

Very brief blocks, for instance of one second, are sometimes used for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. This practice can be seen as humiliating, and is not approved, except for making notes that are in the user's own interest. For instance, when a wrongful block has originally been placed, a one-second block can later be added by the same admin in order to record an apology, or acknowledgement of mistake.

Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith

1. You are personally involved in the content dispute, and therefore, you cannot do a block.

"Reverts It appears that Davidrusher has chosen to issue a call for meatpuppets to come and edit this article. I've reverted several such edits and will continue to do so without prejudice to their content. "Recruiting" people from outside the community to come and edit an article to support a specific POV is a clear policy violation and will not be tolerated. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)"

As proven in the log, I did not call for "meat puppets". I called for leaders of the men's movement to come fix this decrepit section. I did not call for any particular POV (although I did highlight the problem of censorship with respect to the SSM section) to show the censorship problem at Wiki.

Your claim that I called for people to "edit an article to support a specific POV" is a material misrepresentation of fact. See my article at http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/call-for-short-papers-from-men%e2%80%99s-rights-leaders-save-men%e2%80%99s-rights-in-wikipedia/ before you do anything else that I will need to bring to the attention of the Foundation.

Your POV indicates a clear and unacceptable bias against leaders of the men's rights rights movement, and your block is not permitted under Wiki policy.

I insist the block be removed immediately. It if is still in place Monday morning, I will call the Wiki Foundation and take this up at the top. Given the heavy bias I am confronted with by 2 or 3 editors, I see no reason to waste my time on a review. This is an issue that will be fixed from the top down, once and for all. I'm sure that Brad Patrick isn't going to like what is going on in this section.


Davidrusher 08:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)davidrusher


A brief clarification of a few points you raise. There is information about Meatpuppets and what they are on WP. See here [7]. Mr Darcy linked to it above, but maybe you didn't click on the appropriate blue word. I don't find the term very pleasant or very intuitive for newbies to WP, but I think on reading it you will see that your online appeal was a breach of this policy. Mr Darcy has not been involved in a content dispute with you in the way WP terms it. He has not been arguing for or against particular additions based on his interest in the subject, but in order to 'enforce' the WP policy against soliciting supporters to edit articles (meatpuppetry). Hope that helps.--Slp1 13:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to call the Wiki foundation. You've now violated two policies, and rather than admitting your errors, you're making bogus claims of malfeasance on my part, as well as even more bogus claims of POV. You may also wish to make an unblock request on this page by typing {{unblock|reason=Something.}} below this section. Another admin will come and evaluate the block. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment on block[edit]

Mr. Usher, your blocking admin, Mr. Darcy, has asked for outside opinions on the block. Here's mine.

  • You're an experienced advocate for your views, but new to Wikipedia. I think I speak for both myself and Mr. Darcy when I say that would be great if Wikipedia could get your expertise.
  • However, Wikipedia has a fairly long-established series of rules and guidelines, and and you have been stepping on some toes. Just like joining any community, joining Wikipedia is going to take some adjustment. Other strong advocates for various contentious issues (Scientology pro and con; Opus Dei pro and con; Israel-Palestine; 9-11 revisionism v. mainstream thought, etc., etc., etc.) have had similar experiences. Many have ended up permanently banned, some have adjusted to Wikipedia and become respected and productive editors. I would be happy to share my thoughts on what led the banned members into trouble if you want.
  • You haven't been permanently banned, you have been "indefinitely" banned, which means your ban can be lifted whenever Mr. Darcy is convinced to do so. The biggest problem is that you're approaching him quite confrontationally, and it's your past confrontations that got you banned in the first place. You're a new editor, and if you promise to do your best to learn and adopt the Wikipedia guidelines, I suspect Darcy will be happy to welcome you back.

Let me know if there is anything I can do, TheronJ 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Piggybacking on what Theron has to say (which as an uninvolved admin seems to be reasonable)- you state that think Wikipedia should allow the movement to define itself but that isn't how Wikipedia policy works. Wikipedia has neutral point of view and therefore rely on what reliable sources can verifiably tell us (in this dispute the "undue weight" clause of NPOV may be relevant as well). In my experience, making legal threats is one of the quickest ways to get blocked and making calls for personally involved people to edit an article is generally not good - Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. If you continue in this fashion it is likely that your indefinite ban will become a permanent ban. I would suggest that you withdraw your statements about lawsuits or suing the foundation and withdraw your call for meatpuppets/"leaders" and see if Darcy is willing to unblock you then. JoshuaZ 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)