Talk:Alton H. Maddox Jr./Archive 1

Protection

Due to the slow but steady revert war going on I have protected this page for a couple of days. Please can we settle issues on this talkpage. Pedro :  Chat  16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could use a rewrite as Maddox represented several clients but only Brawley is given much notice and recent edits actually REMOVED one of his other clients. A section more biographical will be inserted once page is unlocked. 130.156.29.112 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By "recent edits actually REMOVED one of his other clients", are you referring to his representation of Michael Griffith? The only time I can see where Maddox's representation of the family of Michael Griffith was removed was for a period of approximately a half-hour. See, in this edit you removed almost all the information in the article and all the cited information from the article, erroneously calling it "vandalism", and leaving the article without even a wikilink to the article about Tawana Brawley. That massive removal of cited information was reverted in this edit and the same user within a half-hour added to the article the only information that your edits actually added to the article rather than removed, the fact that Maddox represented the family of Michael Griffith.

Considering that you have not only removed all cited information from this article, but have repeated that same act of removal no less than eight times, it seems quite hypocritical for you to complain that edits by people other than yourself removed information, especially when the information was restored, in more detail than before, in less than half an hour. Of course, the "good faith" explanation would be that you didn't actually look closely enough at the edits you were relentlessly reverting to see that they in fact had incorporated everything that you actually offered for the improvement of the article. That's an explanation which assumes good faith, but it's not necessarily to your credit. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that the length of time the content mentioned had disappeared was in any way significant, and your estimate is somewhat inaccurate. Also, your improvised justification manages to ignore the fact that it was *I*, and not another editor who had to restore the missing info; had I not it likely would have been left out longer. Furthermore, if you had bothered to look at the recent edits, you'd find that the version that was continually restored from mine actually left Mason’s disbarment, a proceeding which is surely not to one's credit, to borrow your clichéd phrase, But, to borrow another overused expression, one would have to assume good faith to realize that. 130.156.31.148 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"I was not aware that the length of time the content mentioned had disappeared was in any way significant, and your estimate is somewhat inaccurate." Of course it's significant. If "the content mentioned" had gone missing from the article for days, then your complaint might be reasonable and your phrasing of it might be accurate. Perhaps it would even be reasonable to complain if the content had gone missing for a day, or whatever length of time would be enough to suggest that the editor who removed it was not going to restore it. But the edit history shows very clearly that the editor who removed it did restore it, restored it in an extremely short time, and for that matter, provided a citation, which you did not. All this makes your complaint about "recent edits actually REMOVED one of his other clients" one step, at best, from a lie of omission.

"Also, your improvised justification manages to ignore the fact that it was *I*, and not another editor who had to restore the missing info; had I not it likely would have been left out longer." As a matter of fact, it was the other editor who restored the missing info -- again, with a citation, which you never bothered to provide. What you did, no less than nine times, was revert repeatedly to a completely inadequate stub version: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

"Furthermore, if you had bothered to look at the recent edits, you'd find that the version that was continually restored from mine actually left Mason’s disbarment, a proceeding which is surely not to one's credit, to borrow your clichéd phrase," Yes, I did indeed notice that the article mentions Maddox's disbarment, in about as brief a fashion as it is possible to imagine. (I've taken the liberty, by the way, of changing the (deliberately?) vague "failed to appear" to the more accurate "refused to appear".)

"But, to borrow another overused expression, one would have to assume good faith to realize that." No, not really. The issue of "do you realize that X did Y?" is separate from the issue of "what possible motives do you think X had for doing Y?" "Assume good faith" means that, when there are both good-faith and bad-faith motives available to explain a particular action, one should be willing to accept a good-faith motive -- so that, for instance, if someone removes from an article a paragraph that is your addition, and provides the explanation in the summary "revert reinsertion of original research", you should examine the cited policy against original research, and the explanation provided for you on the talk page of why your proposed additions violate the cited policy, and, if you have some proposed argument why your material would not constitute original research, respond respectfully to the many people who have looked at that paragraph and seen it as original research. That would comply with WP:AGF, whereas refusing to respond to the assessment of those many editors who deemed the paragraph original research and instead describing any attempt to remove it as "vandalism" (1, 2, 3, many more) and "bad faith" (1, 2, 3) is pretty much a textbook violation of WP:AGF. Of course, as WP:AGF itself points out, the reason behind the principle is: "we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it" and "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I would be very interested if anyone could present a semi-convincing argument how reducing a cited and reliably sourced article to an unwikified stub not once, but nine times, would constitute an actual attempt to help the encyclopedia. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You continue to ignore (deliberately?) that a version of the article repeatedly restored by another editor omitted the reason for Maddox’s disbarment, and in fact, used the very ‘refused’ verb you have insisted on placing in the current article. Now, should we total the length of the time this information was left out, see if it exceeds a day or “whatever length of time would be enough to suggest that the editor who removed it was not going to restore it.”, and conclude that this editor had no interest in seeing this information in the article? Or should we conclude that this editor, in desire to undo my changes, did not notice that in fact an item detrimental to Maddox was in fact being left out? But that would tend to lead one to the conclusion that perhaps another editor was acting in bad faith, a conclusion you may not wish to reach.

By the way, the Griffith material restored with a citation was placed at the end of the article. Given your tendency to emphasize where facts are placed in the text, is your failure to note this an error of omission?

“I would be very interested if anyone could present a semi-convincing argument how reducing a cited and reliably sourced article to an unwikified stub not once, but nine times, would constitute an actual attempt to help the encyclopedia.”

I would like to know how a ‘cited and reliably sourced article’ which reads more like a commentary on the tactics of a particular lawyer and not as a biographical entry constitutes helping the encyclopedia. A stub is certainly preferable to an expanded article which elects to disregard Maddox’s involvement in some of the most widely publicized cases in the New York City area in the 1980’s. Perhaps we can consider this (deliberate?) lack of content as “one step from a lie of omission”, to once more steal that phrase. However, you hopefully can see that the present version has in fact helped the article, and seems to have satisfied at least one other presumably neutral editor who previously had objected to my reversals.

“Yes, I did indeed notice that the article mentions Maddox's disbarment, in about as brief a fashion as it is possible to imagine. (I've taken the liberty, by the way, of changing the (deliberately?) vague "failed to appear" to the more accurate "refused to appear".)”

As ‘brief a fashion as possible to imagine’ could also refer to several other facts mentioned in the current article, including Maddox’s involvement in the Howard Beach, Bensonhurst and Central Park Jogger cases, all of which received significant publicity when they occured. But you only seemed concerned about how this method relates to the Brawley case. Now, I’ve mentioned that the reason for Maddox’s disbarment was one of the facts contained in the stub, despite the best efforts of another editor to restore versions of an article that DIDN’T mention it. Perhaps we should go back to the stub to satisfy your evident desire for this fact to receive the level of notice you deem it should.

“It is possible to be dishonest by omitting significant details”. How true. I knew that once I saw that an expanded version of this article was not going to include any mention of Maddox’s involvements in the aforementioned cases nor his work with the NCBL or Medgar Evers College. Remember your desire (request? challenge?) to see if anyone “could present a semi-convincing argument how reducing a cited and reliably sourced article to an unwikified stub not once, but nine times, would constitute an actual attempt to help the encyclopedia” ? Congratulations, your phrase quoted above provided the very argument you sought. Somewhat unfortunate that you didn’t realize that. 130.156.29.112 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be no use whatever talking with you, since you're making up your facts at random instead of abiding by reality. "I knew that once I saw that an expanded version of this article was not going to include any mention of Maddox’s involvements in the aforementioned cases nor his work with the NCBL or Medgar Evers College." If this is what you "know", then you have proven that you don't "know" anything at all, since you "know" false things and true things equally. This is why Wikipedia will fail: common, garden-variety POV-pushers like you. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When all else fails, resort to personal attacks like 'common garden variety POV pushers like you'. I'm not sure why you continue to contribute, to be generous to this project if you're convinced it will fail, and I don't want to know the answer. Maybe you should consider Conservepedia or Uncyclopedia. Starting your own project is another option. 130.156.29.112 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who examines the evidence and compares it to your falsehoods will see that you are lying, claiming to have put back what someone else deleted when in fact the one deleting was you. I would rather work with an editor who makes a thousand personal attacks than an editor like you, who lies. I just wonder whether, as you lie and lie and lie and lie to try and push your agenda, you start to wonder if you even remember the truth. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"I would rather work with an editor who makes a thousand personal attacks" That says all anyone needs to know about your ability and your desire to contribute to this project. Can I remember the truth? No the question is if you've ever had the ability to see it. You haven't proved you can yet 130.156.31.148 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected - Again

Due to the continual slow revert war I've protected this article again. I will try to keep an eye on this talk page to see if we can agree a neutral version. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it's obvious. The version that uses the neutral verb "said" is preferable to the one that insists on the very non-neutral verb "conceded". "Concede" inherently implies that what is "conceded" is truth. We would never describe someone as "conceding" that the Moon is made of green cheese because we do not hold it to be true that the Moon is made of green cheese. There is no reason not to use the perfectly serviceable, perfectly neutral word "said" and no reason to insist on the biased verb "conceded" -- no reason, that is, which is consistent with Wikipedia's aims of NPOV.

Remember, this is the same anon who cherry-picked out comments by an "authority on legal ethics" which appeared to support Maddox ([1]), yet not only failed to provide but tried to delete comments by the exact same authority from the exact same source which did not reflect so positively on Maddox.([2]) Jimbo Wales himself couldn't sell this lost cause about it somehow "improving" the article to use what is instead clearly a word to avoid. Why is it being taken the least bit seriously coming from this anon? -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we can be glad Wikipedia isn't the legal system. Just think what a mess we'd be in with a legal system which awarded summary judgment to a party which not only failed to present a convincing case but failed to even appear. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)