Talk:Policy Matters Ohio

Untitled

We will be expanding this page throughout the day. I created the page early so collaborators can begin tracking the progress of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elu25 (talk • contribs) 11:28, June 22, 2009

Dispute resolution

Posting here as the first step in dispute resolution, per https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

I am a connected contributor with a conflict of interest--but my edits offer more complete context than those made by Marquardtika (and possibly Praxidicae).

You've also incorrectly flagged as copyright violations content for which our organization holds the copyright and incorrectly identified as self-published content about our organization written by our organization. (See https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves - "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field.")

That content should be restored--but I hope to resolve this dispute before restoring it, to avoid any further edit warring. If you believe the policy quoted above doesn't apply in this case, please explain why. (That's a genuine request; I want to operate according to the community's guidelines.)

It would of course be better all around if the page were edited by disinterested individuals--rather than by me, an employee and supporter of Policy Matters Ohio. However, Marquardtika (and possibly Praxidicae) does not appear neutral either. Benjaminpstein (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You say "my edits offer more complete context..." but you've made only minor edits to this page. Are you also ILoveCleveland (talk · contribs)? Marquardtika (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. These minor edits offer more complete context.

No. Are you also Praxidicae (talk · contribs)? Benjaminpstein (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminpstein: Excuse me? It is a pretty bad idea for you to make ridiculous false accusations fresh off of a block. I highly recommend you strike that.Praxidicae (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Dude, you were blocked as a sock puppet of ILoveCleveland. Looking at the page history of this article, this organization has a long history of editing its own Wikipedia page, with numerous named employees and IPs emanating from the organization's office making edits over the years, including some with major copyright issues. And now there is confirmed socking and meat puppetry going on. Being adversarial with established editors is not going to get you far. If you have constructive suggested changes to this article, post them here on the talk page and make an edit request so that an uninvolved editor can evaluate and implement the edits. Accusing others of bad faith is not going to do you any good. Marquardtika (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am an inexperienced editor; I was only taking cues from Marquardtika (talk · contribs). I replicated his/her language exactly in order to be certain I didn't violate any guidelines, and asked a question to which I genuinely don't have an answer. I noticed some similarities in the types of edits you made and the sites on which you made them. The same kind of similarities that seem to have led to Marquardtika (talk · contribs)'s false accusations. If there is a difference between Marquardtika (talk · contribs)'s question and my own--or the context in which they were posed--please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminpstein (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

'That block was removed after a clarifying conversation with the admin who imposed it. This is the kind of selective decontextualizing you undertook against this page--the edits that drew our attention to the page. I've edited it in good faith, as clarified by the admin lifting the block. ←Not confirmed. ←I don't need to get very far; I just wanted to add a little context to your edits. I did so. Then you made false accusations about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminpstein (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Benjaminpstein Yeah, there's a massive difference between two experienced editors telling you to reign in your hostility and ridiculous accusations and you, having been checkuser blocked as a sock account (they look at both your IP address, behavior and device) attempting to turn a discussion about your COI editing into a witch hunt on myself and Marquardtika, who until now, I don't believe I've ever interacted with. So anything you've identified as similar between us is clearly in your head. Now please get back to the topic at hand. I will also add that I don't think anyone on this talk page other than you has any interest in PMO, just in Wikipedia's own policies being followed. So I also strongly suggest you turn this topic around and start talking about the subject because further attempts to engage in accusations about anyone here is going to result in an WP:ANI report and I don't think any of us want to ruin a perfectly good Thursday by going to a drama board. Praxidicae (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Praxidicae Thank you for your patience with me. I am doing my best to follow the policies you have identified. I don't know what a drama board is, but I don't want to ruin anyone's day. I've pointed out that the checkuser block was lifted because it was not appropriately applied to this account. When you refer to that as evidence of me having done something wrong, I think you're mistaken. (This is an honest question about community guidelines: If I was blocked for violating a rule, and then the block was speedily lifted, shouldn't that make it an invalid way to attack my credibility?) I've disclosed my COI. I don't believe I have shown any hostility, explicitly or implicitly. Given that context, the difference you describe appears to boil down to one of seniority. I accept that as a reason to trust your knowledge of which community guidelines might pertain. I have looked at them and continue to do my best to follow them; I do not think I've violated any during this exchange. One thing I'm unsure of is where this exchange should take place. It does seem strange for Marquardtika to have initiated a conversation about my identity on this talk page instead of on my user talk page. I don't know the protocol, but if we should continue this elsewhere, please advise.

Ahem. The block was not lifted because it was "not appropriately applied"; it was lifted because you agreed to cease making direct edits to the page, to restrict yourself to one account, and to cease colluding with others at your organisation to skew the page to your preferred POV. The block itself was entirely appropriate; meatpuppetry, as I explained in my emails, is considered an abuse of multiple accounts, and we have technical proof of that. Levelling entirely unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry at other users, however, is regarded as a personal attack, so @Benjaminpstein: unless you have some very good evidence that Praxidicae and Marquardtika are the same person (beyond: "they are both preventing me from making the article look like I want it to") you need to strike that statement and apologise. Yunshui ^雲_水 21:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of those conditions. Specifically, your use of the term “colluding,” your second use of the term “cease.” (And for the same reason but to a lesser degree, “restrict.") In our email exchange, I explained—and you seemed to accept-that I was not using multiple accounts, nor was I aware of the other edits coming from our office. You helpfully explained that the organization would be considered a single user. That’s something I didn’t know, and once I understood the idea, I could see why the block was applied across-the-board. I was under the impression that you had followed the community guideline of assuming good faith and taken me at my word that I myself am trying to abide by those same guidelines. That is, I believed that ‘’’you’’’ believed my account was incorrectly included in the block, and that was why you were willing to lift it, on the conditions you described.

I was making, and continue to make, a good faith effort to edit the page in ways that adhere to community guidelines and improve the page. If I violated a policy by asking one user the same question that user asked me, I will happily delete that comment and apologize, but not until it’s clarified why that policy applies in one case but not the other. (“Happily” because, as you can see from my edits, I’m really just trying to do the right thing here, though I don’t think I should be subject to capricious rules because of my lack of seniority.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminpstein (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that abusing of multiple accounts is regarded as one of the cardinal sins of Wikipedia, accusing another editor of doing so is quite a provocative statement. It's roughly the Wikipedia equivalent of publicly accusing someone of criminal fraud. In your case, editors who raised the suspicion that you were operating more than one account had reasonable evidence for such suspicion - you have only ever shown interest in this one page (as have the other accounts you were connected to), we already know that your office has used multiple accounts to edit the article, and your username matches the name of a person who works for Policy Matters Ohio. As it turned out; these suspicions were correct, and checkuser evidence easily tied your account to previous accounts from your organisation. It was on the understanding that yours will be the only account that Policy Matters Ohio uses on Wikipedia to edit regarding this article that you were unblocked.

In the case of Praxidicae and Marquardtika, there is no such evidence. They both have tens of thousands of edits under their belts to a vast range of articles. I've been an administrator for some time and am fairly experienced at spotting the signs of multiple account abuse, and I see no evidence whatsoever that Praxidicae and Marquardtika are the same user. The onus is on you to provide evidence to back up your claim; if you cannot do so, you should withdraw it. Otherwise, you are simply casting aspersions on your opponents, which is a disruptive tactic in any debate. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of them as "opponents." I think of Wikipedia editors as collaborators on a project that intends to create an accurate, robust resource. I understood Marquardtika to be a model participant in that collaboration, and so took his/her initial question to be an example of appropriate behavior. Marquardtika provided no evidence to support his/her accusation--whether s/he had it or not. That context-free accusation made by an experienced editor led me to believe context-free accusations were the norm.

Your explanation helps me understand that evidence was available--but you can see for yourself that Marquardtika did not include that evidence when leveling his/her accusation. As I expressed in our email exchange, I didn't have all the information about my organization's edits either, and so Marquardtika's accusation was especially out-of-the-blue. I now understand WP policy regards edits from two people involved in the same organization and from the same IP address as coming from the same person--a reasonable policy, given the context you explained. But, outside that context, I was operating on my own; the answer to his/her instigating question is "No"--not just technically, but also to the extent of my knowledge at the time. The fact that I now understand what was going on does not change the fact that, in that moment, Marquardtika leveled an accusation without providing evidence, and I responded in kind.

So, sure--I apologize and withdraw my question. The information available to me at the time suggested it was acceptable, but I now have more information that clarifies why it wasn't. I remain committed to operating in good faith and according to community standards (as much as I can--there's plenty I still don't know). Benjaminpstein (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be changed: (In line 1) Replace "is a left-leaning nonprofit think tank based in Ohio" with:

is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, left-leaning public policy think tank. The organization, based in Cleveland, Ohio with an office in Columbus, says its mission is "to create a more vibrant, equitable, sustainable and inclusive Ohio through research, strategic communications, coalition building and policy advocacy."[1]

Explanation of issue: This change offers more detail about the organization, including its mission statement.

References supporting change: https://www.policymattersohio.org/ Benjaminpstein (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes by  Spintendo  should be reverted.

• These edits decrease the accuracy of the page.
• The rationale contains faulty reasoning.

I believe the simplest approach to explaining the flaws in the rationale—and the resulting flaws in the implementation—would be to respond to each misstep individually. What is the best format for doing so? (I would think it would be to simply insert my responses in the original rationale itself, setting them apart with a font change or brackets. However, I’ve taken that approach before and had a more experienced editor remove them from that context, which defeats the purpose.) In the meantime, and in the interest of accuracy, I suggest the page be reverted to it earlier form. Benjaminpstein (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply 13-JUN-2019

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. Y The organization is already described in the lead sentence as a non-profit.
2. N The organization cannot be described as non-partisan whilst concomitantly being described as left-leaning.
3. Y The motto "to create (future tense) a more vibrant, equitable, sustainable and inclusive Ohio through research, strategic communications, coalition building and policy advocacy" is longwinded and slightly inaccurate, as the statement on the website says the organization "creates (past tense) a more vibrant, equitable, sustainable and inclusive Ohio". Under the Who We Are section of the organization's website, this is shortened to "Vibrant, Equitable, Sustainable, Inclusive" which is described by the organization as being their four core "buckets". This feels like a more succinct motto; therefore, the parameter has been set in the infobox as |motto=Vibrant, Equitable, Sustainable, Inclusive.

Regards,  Spintendo  05:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Extended content

Edit #1 Sentence 1: Add "progressive" between "nonprofit" and "think tank." Cut "left-leaning." Rationales: "Progressive" carries less bias than "left-leaning," and is used to describe Policy Matters in this recent source: https://www.statenews.org/post/senate-transportation-budget-includes-change-low-income-tax-credit It appears the term "left-leaning" was added by Marquardtika (talk · contribs), the same user who removed the term "right-leaning" from the page of another organization called "The Buckeye Institute." Marquardtika (talk · contribs)'s rationale for cutting "right-leaning" is that it is "covered by 'free-market,' which is the sourced term." Likewise, "left-leaning" would be covered by "progressive," a term for which I've here provided a source. Marquardtika (talk · contribs) sources "left-leaning" from this article, which also applies the descriptor "right-leaning" to The Buckeye Institute. If a user edits two pages, cutting potentially biased language from one and adding it to another, and citing a source that applies that language to both, it should raise suspicions that those edits may come from a biased perspective. Even if the user is not biased, the term "left-leaning" should be cut, and that user's edits to both pages should be scrutinized. Edit #2 Sentence 1: Add "nonpartisan" before "nonprofit." Rationale: As a 501(c)(3) organization, Policy Matters is prohibited from taking part in partisan political activity: It is by definition "nonpartisan." Another editor's assertion that "The organization cannot be described as 'non-partisan' whil[e] concomitantly being described as 'left-leaning'" incorrectly interprets the term "partisan," though that concern would be addressed by edit #1. Source: https://www.nonprofitvote.org/nonprofits-voting-elections-online/general-rules/ Edit #3 After sentence 1: Insert "The organization, based in Cleveland, Ohio with an office in Columbus says it 'creates a more vibrant, equitable, sustainable and inclusive Ohio through research, strategic communications, coalition building and policy advocacy.'" Rationales: The geographic information provided is more precise than the current version's "based in Ohio." (Should this edit be made, those three words would need to be cut from sentence 1.) A self-description, quoted from the organization's website and described as something "the organization...says it" does is a model that is used elsewhere, including here - on a page edited carefully by another user who edits this page. The argument by a previous editor that the statement is "longwinded" is a judgement call; that editor's desire for brevity could be seen as arbitrary, and is outweighed by the usefulness of a full description of the organization's activities and mission. Source: https://www.policymattersohio.org/

General rationale: This organizational description is modeled on the one that appears on this page, a description that has been reviewed and edited by (and so is presumably acceptable to) at least one other editor who monitors this page.

Benjaminpstein (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 03-JUL-2019

1. Please obtain a consensus for these changes before requesting their being carried out.
2. The process of changing these descriptions ought to include input from involved local editors. Pinging @Marquardtika: for their input.

Regards,  Spintendo  20:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks for the ping, and for all the work you do to answer COI edit requests. I actually unwatched this page some time ago as it seemed to me like potentially productive content discussions had devolved into unhelpful ad hominem diatribes. I had originally noticed this page for its long history of undisclosed paid editing, which I tried to correct. I have no ongoing interest in the page and am happy to see the undisclosed paid editing has turned into disclosed COI editing using our edit request system. I'm happy to defer to your judgement on the specific edit requests at hand, or to other interested editors who want to get involved here. Marquardtika (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Given Marquardtika's acquiescence, can we move forward with the suggested edits? Benjaminpstein (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminpstein: you can stop pinging me to this page. I said above that I had unwatched it and wasn't interested in engaging here further. Each time you write my name like this "Marquardtika" it pings me to the page. I also haven't "acquiesced" to anything. Marquardtika (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'm not sure if I should edit my original comment or simply acknowledge here that the word "acquiescence" in my comment from 18 July should be changed to "deference," reflecting Marquardtika's original word choice.Benjaminpstein (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminpstein (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminpstein: I'd be happy to make these changes. It looks like you wanted it changed to nonpartisan, non-profit, progressive think tank correct? As the word progressive is an essentially contested concept, I'd like to WikiLink the word if possible to progressivism in the 21st century. Please advise if you agree. Regards,  Spintendo  14:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you for your help! Yes, that wording sounds right, and I think that link would be valuable. Thanks again. Benjaminpstein (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Implemented  Spintendo  16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)