Talk:Economic fascism/twoversions

message: To avoid the edit war between RJII and... well, everyone else, I've used an  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)
replies: text: I've never seen this before.  It looks like a refined :Template:Twoversions.  Jkelly 04:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Heading off edit war

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, what is being proposed is to lock the  template in place for Economic fascism, and also lock the article at Economic fascism/Article. Firebug 05:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Are you going to stop or am I taking you to Arbitration? RJII 05:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to capitulate to a POV-pushing bully. This nonsense stops here. Firebug 05:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you got it. Arbitration it is. Say goodbye to your dreams of adminship. LOL. RJII 05:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page history concern... page protection? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fine, let's see what he says. RJII 06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Staus quo?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TwoVersions 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AfD to vote on a redirect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AfD Clarification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Situation now