Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:23, 20 February 2007

Tort Reform

Thank you for the POV tag. I did this when I was very tired, and I edited too much too quickly. I reverted back, so authors can make piecemeal changes. I left the sentence on the definition of frivolous lawsuit, because the previous edit was extremely POV. Please discuss in talk what else a frivolous lawsuit could possibly be. The previous author inserted a paragraph for what should be as sentence. The previous edit was extremely POV.

Also, I left the new introduction. As previous talk page authors point out, the very term 'tort reform' is controversial and political.MollyBloom 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Medical malpractice

I removed the POV tag. No explanation was given. Tags for the sake of having tags do nothing but clutter up the Misplaced Pages. The article can't be fixed if the editors don't know what the problem is. Could you please explain your rationale on the talk page so we can try to reach a consensus? Be specific. Thanks. MoodyGroove 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

This article is hardly pov. It is a pretty dry explanation of what medical malpractice is. It describes the legal action. And it has well-cited statistics on medical error.Jance 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. I was amazed when a reporter who should know better cited the Misplaced Pages article to me as an example of why reformers were wrong; I checked the article and found it remarkably one-sided, so put the tag in and didn't have a chance to clean it up. I've since added discussion to the talk page with a partial list of my objections. -- TedFrank 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Baron

You have a real POV problem with this article. If you see the sources you think should be added, you will see why they are either unreliable sources or sources with claims and accusations that have been proven false. You and I are going to have a real fight if you try to make this into a lawyer-hating article. You have no clue what kind of law I practice (I made most of the changes to which you referred) - in fact, I practice both plaintiff's and defense law. Before you open your mouth perhaps you should try to find out the facts.67.35.126.14 06:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am correctly applying WP:NPOV rules. You are not. I don't care who you represent: your edits are consistently slanted at deleting points of view contrary to ATLA talking points. -- TedFrank 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that is a matter of opinion. Many of the sources you would like to include were already nixed in other articles as highly political and unreliable. It is a fact that Baron was exonerated from all charges of wrongdoing. Because that is contrary to your lawyer-hating propaganda and unreliable sources does not make it untrue. Furthermore, you are the one accusing me of being a "plaintiff's lawyer" so you evidently did care. Please do not make bald assertions without any knowledgde of the facts. Finally, I don't mind if there is a criticism section, that is very s hort, since the article is short. It will conclude, however, that he was exonerated from all the charges. Jance 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please name which other articles have inappropriately "nixed" Reason magazine and Walter Olson as sources for being "unreliable" so that I may apply the appropriate POV tag to articles that must also be slanted. Both meet WP:RS standards, and efforts to delete them from Misplaced Pages are part of a systematic campaign to delete legitimate points of view from civil-justice-related articles. -- TedFrank 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you stop; trying to bait me, and start trying to be constructive, and not destructive? Now leave me alone. I do not want to communicate with you, since you only seem capable of insults.Jance 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred Baron

I said stop it. I mean it. You are not going to get away with attack pages. If you want to write a reasonble criticism section (if you are capable of it), then do so. Otherwise the page will be reverted. And If you don't stop harassing me I am going to go to An;/I. This is your last warning.Jance 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written a reasonable, balanced criticism section that quoted both sides of the issue. You reverted it without explanation. Please go to AN/I, because I would love to have reasonable third parties compare our edits on this page. -- TedFrank 07:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would also, and I would like to see anyone find a way to justify a bio with 80% criticism. You would like a pure attack page, but it isn't going to happen. I don't have a problem wtih a criticism section. I don't know Baron and don't care to know him. But I sure do wonder about someone who makes comments like the ATLA is a "pack of lies". Are you an attorney? Do you have a clue as to what you are even talking about?: No, you don't. But youy would have an article on an attorney that is 75% attack. Yes I would like to see what a neutral 3rd party would think of your harassment and continued bullying.Jance 07:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrators: Please note that Jance is also Jgwlaw and that she is resorting to tactics that got her blocked repeatedly in her earlier username. Sanctions were avoided only because Jgwlaw agreed to leave Misplaced Pages. Assistance is appreciated. -- TedFrank 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That sort of behaviour is provocative and very unhelpful. We (admins) know that Jance is editing under the new account. She told us not long after she returned. As for heavily slanting an article with negative material, please read WP:Undue weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarah Ewart (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

There is no sockpuppetry here. That has been well and long settled. Your attempt to raise dead issues shows your bad faith and bad motives. I am not and have never been a sockpuppet. You are the one who attacked me, Ted. And I am not going to allow you to try to sling mud - that is all you are doing now, and it won't work. .Jance 07:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrators: please also note that not only is Jance/Jgwlaw harassing me by deleting well-researched edits and POV tags, but she is memory-holing the Talk page (and a second time) so that people reviewing the RFC cannot even see what the dispute is. Please help. -- TedFrank 07:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am Jance. I do not go by jgwlaw and your attempt to bring that up now is deceitful and intended only to harass. I think a few of the admins whose help you are claiming you solicit probably would agree. I have not gone by jgwlaw in a long time, and do not intend to do so again. Your attempt to sling mud is obvious and it won't work. I will continue to remove personal attacks from talk pages. Please help, is right,. Stop this abuse. For the record, if it is so damn important to you, I will say I once went by jgwlaw. You know full well that has not been in months, and your attempt to bring it up now is to distract and bully.Jance 07:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

harassment from Jance/Jgwlaw

In August 2006, User:Jgwlaw, about to face severe sanctions for repeated Misplaced Pages abuse, avoided those sanctions by announcing that she would leave Misplaced Pages (though not without first threatening litigation)..

User:Jance, posting also as 67.35.126.14, started posting in November 2006 on Jgwlaw's old stomping grounds, acknowledges formerly posting as Jgwlaw, and is up to the same tricks that got her in trouble before:

• Threatening litigation:
  • I have a legal claim for invasion of privacy
  • ANd yes, I will threaten you with a lawsuit
  • Next time I won't threaten
  • If nobody stops your behavior, I will take further action and that is not a threat, but a promise
  • Jance makes ambiguous threat meant to imply litigation
• Edit-warring ,
• Deleting my comment on an administrator's talk page so that administrator would falsely think that a complaint was unresolved., also
• Removal of POV tags
• Jance writes: Are you an attorney? Do you have a clue as to what you are even talking about?: No, you don't on my talk page.
• Jance writes: What in the hell is your problem? Are you always this rabid?
• Jance writes: And evidently, he wishes to continue his propaganda here.
• Jance writes: This is the most stupid statement I have heard in a long time.
• Jance writes: Your venom h as been stunning. I will now let you rant to whomever you please, because I am no longer going to communicate with or to you.
• Jance writes: Bullshit.
• Other personal attacks: , , ,
• Wikistalking retaliatory reversions without explanation or basis., ,
  • For example, I added a NPOV factoid to the Fred Baron article that came from Professor Issacharoff. Issacharoff is well known as a supporter of the plaintiffs' bar; I disagree with him about a lot, but I wanted a balanced article, so I included his law review article on asbestos litigation which had a notable fact about Baron. Jance simply deleted my edit with the misleading comment (REmove POV and blatant smear introduction)
• Unreasonable complaints contrary to WP:RS and WP:NPOV about citing "political" sources, though the same editor has no problem citing political sources she agrees with. Compare and (objecting to "political" sources) with and and (adding political sources)
• Deleting or editing others' comments on talk pages to make it difficult for third parties to see what's going on., , , , , .
  • For example, in response to a POV tag, Jgwlaw and Gfwesq added 26 comments to the tort reform talk page in 12 hours while deleting part of the POV objection I made.
  • Here, Jance deletes my objection to the unexplained reversion of a lengthy edit I made at her request, even though that edit complied with the unreasonable sourcing demands she made to exclude legitimate sources she considered illegitimate, and even though she rejected my earlier offers for her to write the first draft of the section I requested to avoid precisely this problem.
• Similar action on the RFC page.

Please do not think that this is a complete list by any means.

Please advise how to best handle. I'm doing my best to make reasonable NPOV edits to correct a problem of POV bias added by Jgwlaw/Gfwesq/Jance's thousands of edits to articles about civil justice issues where she systematically deletes any information (regardless of sourcing) critical of the plaintiffs' bar (e.g., , , , , , , , , ), but there's no point to doing so if she can just revert me without consequence, and I certainly can't spend the time on this that this exceptionally persistent editor can.

Too, can an editor avoid sanctions by self-barring oneself, deleting much of their history of their problems on Misplaced Pages, and then coming back as another user? (Cf. comments by User:Random832

I recognize that I can be accused of a COI; I have, for the most part, restricted myself to POV tags, comments on talk pages, and what I thought to be uncontroversial factual corrections, though those factual edits have been reverted too. When I created a new article, I added a POV tag and propounded an AfD to get immediate feedback.

-- TedFrank 09:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that Jance is Jgwlaw. Please stop baiting and harassing her. If you don't, you will be the one who gets blocked. And I'm serious about that. Harassment campaigns are not tolerated on Misplaced Pages. I removed your report from the noticeboard because those matters were dealt with a long time ago. No admin is going to block or sanction Jance for matters a long time in the past and for which she has already been blocked or faced RfC over. If you have a problem with her, follow Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution but trying to contaminate the process by conducting a campaign against her is not on. Sarah 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My complaint was deleted by Sarah Ewart with the claim that the matter was "already dealt with." I've asked Sarah to show me where on Misplaced Pages administrators considered this issue. I have yet to receive a response. -- TedFrank 14:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jance as Jgwlaw was blocked several times, additionally she has faced an RFC. Stop your harassment right now or you will be blocked. Sarah 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I wasn't aware of the RFC. I am trying to defend myself against Jance's harassment. I will take my complaint there. -- TedFrank 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed this quite closely and it looks quite clear to me that you are harassing and baiting her. Sarah 15:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment (and I question its neutrality). I am attempting to NPOV Jance/Jgwlaw's consistent violations of WP:NPOV, and I am being insulted and harassed and reverted in response, which I have documented in detail. It is not true that "these matters were dealt with." Jance avoided a long-time block by falsely representing that she was leaving Misplaced Pages, and the RFC is dormant. Meanwhile, I am being harassed and insulted, and my edits are being systematically reverted without explanation, and this is not being dealt with. Even if you think I am doing something wrong (and I honestly am unaware what you think is "harassment": can you point to specific diffs?), I don't see how you can conclude that and not find additional fault with Jance's violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. -- TedFrank 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your assessment of your own behaviour. And I don't see what me thanking Jance for giving me a barnstar has to do with anything. Just because I try to be nice to people when they are nice to me, and just because someone gives me a picture to put on my page doesn't mean that I can't see straight anymore...I certified and endorsed the RFC against her for petes sake. As I've told you, if you have an editing dispute with her, use dispute resolution, request mediation, 3 opinion, whatever, but don't campaign against, harass and abuse people because you will be blocked. If you think your edits are being reverted without explanation, calmly discuss it on the article's talk page. What I saw of your discussions was you flinging around personal abuse and accusations. Also, please read over the actual policies and guidelines, such as WP:Undue weight because trying to weight an article is unacceptable. You need to deal with the present instead of trying to punish Jance for the past and using it as an excuse for your own rotten behaviour. 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see a lot of accusations and no substantiation. I have substantiated the personal insults that Jance has made of me: if you're going to accuse me of "personal abuse", please document where I said anything like Jance's "Do you have a clue as to what you are even talking about?: No, you don't" or other insults. I did use dispute resolution--how can I raise a POV issue when Jance is repeatedly deleting my POV tags and talk-page commentary? I am "not trying to punish Jance for the past." Jance is committing the same sins that would have gotten her permanently banned from Misplaced Pages if she had not falsely represented that she was leaving Misplaced Pages. I question your neutrality because your comment reveals that you are friendly with Jance outside this and that you correspond with her about her personal life, and you are not leaving comments on my page as a neutral administrator new to the situation, and because you are leaving threatening comments on my talk page while ignoring Jance's abuses: again, even if you think I am doing something wrong (and I honestly am unaware what you think is "harassment" and you have yet to point to specific diffs), I don't see how you can conclude that and not find additional fault with Jance's violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. Even if there is an undue-weight problem, the solution is to add a POV tag and beef up the rest of the article, rather than revert an extensively-researched edit, and Jance has repeatedly slanted articles by deleting legitimate information that disagrees with her point of view. -- TedFrank 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Real name

YOU use your real name here, so I am entitled to do so,. Jance 01:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop harassing me, please. -- TedFrank 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive about giving out personal information on any user, regardless of the circumstances. This is not allowed, and is considered placing an editor in danger. You will be blocked if you give out personal information about any user. InBC 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I please have some formal clarification of this policy, which I am happy to adhere to? Hypothetical scenarios:

1. A has a sockpuppet by the name of B. B claims it is an invasion of her privacy to identify the sockpuppet. Do I violate the policy if I point out the sockpuppetry?
2. A publicizes her Misplaced Pages editing in the outside world on an inflammatory highly political website. A then accuses B of a conflict of interest. Can B point out that A also suffers from a conflict of interest, or should B simply set up an "anonymous" account to do editing? -- TedFrank 02:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh so now since I am not a sockpuppet, you are accusing me of creating an "anonymous" account? What in the hell is your problem? Are you always this rabid?Jance 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The policy in question is Misplaced Pages:Harassment which states:

"Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives."

If you feel that requesting a checkuser may violate this rule, you can get around it by e-mailing a user with checkuser rights(they are listed on the WP:RFCU page) explaining why you did not post this on the regular forum. This will ensure privacy. InBC 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, HIghinBC. That is an accurate statement. Ted knows full well that I did not advertise anything, and didn't even know my and my husband's name were on this site as "guest editors". Rest assured, our names iwll be removed. That is the ONLY time that he will find our names on the internet. We desire and need our privacy, because of what we do for a living. It could be dangerous for us. That Ted chooses to blog on far right wing lawyer-hating sites in his name is his business. And my privacy IS my business. For that matter, I don't blog under any pseudonym. Jance 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely my point. Jance is able to make a series of false accusations and claims here and call me a liar; but if I refute them by linking to the webpages that prove she's falsely accusing me, she can claim I'm violating her anonymity. Note also the WP:NPA violation. -- TedFrank 03:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is too complex for a single admin to deal with. This needs community involvement, I have already recommended several options. InBC 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

High, just go look at the "TortDeform" website he refers to. THat is the only place our name is on the internet. If you also look at the number of entries, you will see that we did NOT post there more than once or twice. So his accusations are indeed false. I can't help what he chooses to publicize. I have already requested a "sockpuppet" check so that lie will be put to rest. I do not even understand his motives for harassing me, except that he doesn't like my politics. It has gotten so out of hand that it looks deranged.Jance 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not going to look at the website, I am not going to settle this dispute. There is already a community discussion on WP:ANI. I have already given the advice I intend to give. InBC 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy

An article that you created, Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy Thank you. SkierRMH 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was self-listed. -- TedFrank 05:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

interesting, isn't it? I wonder why it was written in the first place?Jance 06:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)