User talk:FredEthelMertz

COI

Hi, as you are using a single purpose account to edit only the article John M. Reich, in the interests of disclosure please declare any interest you have in the subject of this article. Also, there is a debate underway on article talk about the material that caused the edit dispute and consequent protection. Other editors are coming to consensus on the integration of properly cited material into the article, and once the protection is removed, the material will be integrated unless you can explain what you thought was wrong with the material in question. As this project is based on consensus, and assuming that the material breaks no guidelines or policies, removal of cited material at that point without any engagement with other editors can and will only be treated as an act of bad faith. Mfield (Oi!) 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mfield - Hi, and thanks for you fairness in evaluation of the discussion matters. Wikipedia editing is an unfamiliar field and I likely have stumbled in making points and providing citations. As you referenced in earlier comments - the proposed material is too specific and specialized for a biography article, and the material is likely too recent to determine historical significance. The selection of text, quotes and citations provided by the other editors appear to be an attempt to blame the IndyMac failure on Mr. Reich. The IndyMac failure began years ago with the development of sub-prime mortgages, and the eventual decline in the housing market. Banking regulators in current years did not cause the failure of the banks...fingers can be pointed at a number of Congressional committees, mortgage brokers, bank CFO's, etc. and this appears to be a blatant attack on a single individual. I suspect that a reference to IndyMac could be included in the bio, but the amount of space currently dedicated is out of proportion. Again, my apologies for not fully comprehending the wikipedia editing and discussion systems. FredEthelMertz (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns as far as the placing of undue weight in a bio article. You need to fully explain these concerns on the article talk page though, as without engagement there, a consensus will form regardless and the information will likely be included unless there are rational arguments as to why it should not be. The best thing you can do it fully engage on article talk and express you objections to the material from factual and/or contextual standpoints. Sources and well thought out arguments to back your opinions will be vital as the material being proposed is well cited, and from highly reliable sources as well.

But once again you definitely need to clarify whether you have a conflict of interest as nothing sets alarm bells ringing like a single purpose account, especially when that account actions can be interpreted as attempting to suppress criticism of an article's subject. If you are related to/involved with or otherwise know the subject in some way then that is fine, but you must to declare that interest and abide closely by our guidelines on how to handle your objections. Wikipedia is not censored, and if information is correctly cited and deemed relevant by consensus, it will appear in a BLP article whether or not it is flattering to the subject, and, provided it does not violate our BLP guidelines, it will be allowed to stand in the face of objections from the subject or his/her supporters.Mfield (Oi!) 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The other editors seem to have significant time to spend on Wikipedia and on the web; that's not a luxury available to me. As much as it would benefit the discussion to reply to all points made, time isn't currently available to do so. If the original period of one week protection were maintained, it would allow more time for proper response with appropriate citation.FredEthelMertz (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you do not spend as much time on Wikipedia is noted, and is something you should mention on article talk as well, but you have to start the process of engagement with the other editors so that they do not assume bad faith about your intentions. As it stands right now they have well sourced information and the protection process is not intended to stop the addition of that, only to prevent temporary instability during an edit war/content dispute. It cannot be allowed to remain protected for extended periods without good solid objections. Mfield (Oi!) 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, again, for your advice. A response will be registered on Article Talk shortly...although, at this point, it doesn't appear that anything will cool down the other editors!

Is it ethical/acceptable to request that the page be protected through the weekend to allow time for research?FredEthelMertz (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is in the absence of any overiding issues like BLP concerns, there is no reason to keep the article protected. Everything that is being proposed is fully cited, it just seems to be a question of how much of it is really noteworthy enough to be in a bio. If you take that into account what you have is nothing more than a basic content dispute which doesn't merit keeping the article protected unecessarily. It is better to return to normal operation and talk over the issue as it goes. If the content gets added in, then do not remove it, take it to talk first. As it stands, the onus is really on you to argue that the material should not be included, as there is nothing policy-wise that prevents it from being in the article. There is certainly nothing that threatening to the reputation of either the subject or the encyclopedia being proposed to be added that would merit keeping the article protected on the promise of information to come. At the same time, if it got unprotected then it would also certainly remain watched to make sure that nothing contentious and unsourced got added in. Mfield (Oi!) 01:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that "there is certainly nothing that threatening to the reputation of the subject..." - the selection of material and the anger of the editors is truly slanted and quite vicious. Although they indicate citations, they are from sources that have journalistic slants and are, themselves, opinionated. You have been incredibly fair in weighing both sides of the story and in responding equally to both parties. So, given the aggressiveness of the other editors, how can an agreement be reached on "how much of it is really noteworthy enough to be in a bio?" The other parties seem to now be determined to write a book on the subject; I doubt if they would ever agree to limit the volume of text!FredEthelMertz (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Drop me a line sometime. I'd love to know how it's going for you. Honestly. --Dlawbailey (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)