User talk:Stymiee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following was posted to George William Herbert's User Page and is posted here for full transparency.

Good afternoon, Mr. Herbert.

I just wanted to let you know that I am making changes to the "Interchange Fee" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_fee). The "Discussion" tab is locked, so I am posting my reasoning on your user page and on the user page of Stymiee, with whom I think I am in a "revert war." In brief, I am trying to correct the bias of the article by inserting into the "controversy" section the other side of the Merchants' argument (of course, you can read the whole history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interchange_fee&action=history).

I feel that the changes I made are consistent both with the explicit rules of Wikipedia and are in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia mission. My edits further the following Wikipedia values (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article):

• acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.

My angle on the subject, which includes the activities and viewpoint of the Electronic Payment Coalition (EPC) is certainly part of the “controversy,” which is where I made most of my edits and EPC’s Web site (which I linked to in the “external links” section” is certainly relevant to people looking for external sources of information—at least as relevant as The Merchant’s Bill of Rights.

• is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.

Words like “secrecy” are logical “poison pills;” they assume nefarious (or at least ulterior) motives. “Transparency,” which I used, is a more neutral term.

Also, Stymiee is deleting essential parts of the controversy; in a section dedicated to explaining an ongoing controversy, I am presenting one side’s documented argument, that “merchants are simply attempting to shift costs to consumers – costs that are a part of doing business, just as rent, salaries, or the cost of accepting checks,” which I state is an argument, not a fact (that is, it is a verifiable fact that one sides make the argument I present and that that argument is a part of the controversy—thus it belongs in the “controversy” section of this article).

• is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.

I wrote “Some countries, such as Australia, have established price controls in this arena. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.” Stymiee edits this to “Some countries have established significantly lower interchange fees. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.” My language is more precise and explicit. I name a country and detail why they have a different interchange fee I do not use words like “significantly” or “marginally” or “nominally” lower; what does “significantly lower” mean? 10 percent lower? 50 percent lower? My language is more precise and explicit. I would also point out that interchange fees are negotiated between banks, they are not set by one group of banks (more on that below).

• is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.

By linking to the EPC, I am adding to the cache of verifiable facts. People can go to the EPC for their side of the argument and to read the assembled statistics available on the site. I am already gathering more online citations for the facts that I have presented in my edits; currently, my information comes only from wood-pulp media.

I also believe that my edits are in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. For example, much of the "overview" section (before my edits) represented an argument and not verifiable statements of fact. In my deletion of certain passages, I tried to keep the article focused on verifiable, accurate statements of fact about the Interchange Fee, even to the extent of presenting both sides in the "controversy" section.

An example of this is that the article stated "Interchange fees are set collectively by the financial institutions which are stakeholders in Visa (currently an association of banks and other credit card issuers and acquirers) and MasterCard (a public company). Many of these banks issue both credit and debit cards. JPMorgan Chase is the largest issuer of both." In truth, interchange fees are negotiated, not set, (see, for example, http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/06-06/interchange.cfm, "Sears and large grocery chains, have negotiated special interchange fee deals."

Not relevant to the article are the following paragraphs, which serve more to vilify the payment card industry and do not help readers understand what the Interchange fee is, nor its history nor the ongoing controversy that surrounds it.

This post seems long enough and you are a patient man if you have read it in its entirety. Because the discussion page of the Interchange Fee article is locked, I am cross-posting this entry on your page, on my own page and on Stymiee’s for full transparency and I am going to revert the Interchange Fee article to my own edits. Though I hope the altercation I seem to be having with Stymiee can be worked out without any intervention, I hope that I can contact you again should the need arise.

Thanks,

Anne Rush (Arush-JMP)

Contents

[edit] Calling for a truce with Stymiee and seeking third party intervention.

I would like, formally, to declare a true with Stymiee. Given the fact that he reverts without leaving notes on the talk page and that he seems to have a history of un-Wiki-like behavior as this post to his talk page from Calltech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calltech) on 23 December 2006 attests:

(being quote)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStymiee&diff=188013876&oldid=96099797)

(end quote)

Stymiee: please contact me directly on my user page about our editorial differences before you abrogate the 3RR.

I am also seeking comment on my changes through other channels and expect to have entries to this talk page forthwith.

GBYehuda (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Interchange fee. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onorem♠Dil 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this seems to be occurring due to multiple parties. Can this article be locked until a resolution is found? stymiee (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You've now been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for breaking the three-revert rule on Interchange fee. --Onorem♠Dil 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The content I reverted to was the undisputed content before the current dispute began. This is the content that should remain n place until a resolution is reached. stymiee (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you've broken 3rr and have been warned about it, the content that should remain in place is the content that is currently there. It doesn't matter if it happens to be the The Wrong Version. --Onorem♠Dil 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on my altercation with Stymiee

I am the editor with whom Stymiee is in a revert war.

In brief, I believe that my edits are well-researched, well-documented and represent a more complete, encyclopedic formulation of the Interchange Fee than Styimee's text.

As to the argument between Stymiee and myself, I believe I have always acted in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia's stated policies and general spirit. I always leave copious notes as to why I am making the changes to certain pages and have always contacted Stymiee when I have changed the page. Stymiee, conversely, has not acted in good faith. He has broken 3RR, has never left notes on the discussion page, and has never contacted me to discuss the changes I have made or that he wants to see made.

While this case moves forward, I would ask that any interested parties take a look at the Interchange Fee discussion page, at Stymiee's Discussion History page, and at how both Stymiee and I have conducted ourselves throughout this argument.

Though I have left extensive notes on the discussion page, I would like to include a summary here:

My edits are not Vandalism.

My edits do not compromise the integrity of Wikipedia in any way. They are not obscene, crude, humorous, or nonsensical.

My edits allow other to assume good faith< about my edits.

I have always taken steps for visitors, administrators and even Stymiee to believe that I act in good faith. I have annotated my changes extensively, left notes for administrators and even reached out to Stymiee on his talk page as well as on this page.

Stymiee has shown himself to act in bad faith in this instance and has a history of being accused of acting in bad faith.

Stymiee has never left notes explaining why he reverts the text. I have never heard back from him on my own talk page, nor has he posted the reason that my edits should be removed. The history in his Discussion page shows that he has been often accused of acting in Bad Faith, and his refusal to talk or negotiate with me (or any other editor), to me, makes the strongest case of all.

GBYehuda (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Request for arbitration

Hi. I have noticed that you recently filed a request for arbitration concerning a dispute between you and User:GBYehuda. Just some advice, that arbcom will not normally accept requests unless all other dispute resolution menthods have failed. It may also result in sanctions. It is really a last resort. I would recommend either getting community dispute resolution help through WP:Requests for comment or mediation, which tries to gain an agreement between parties involved, through Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Please contact me if you have any queries. Thanks very much. Tbo 157(talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested new section for Interchange Fee article

I posted a suggestion for a new section on the Interchange fee page on its Talk page, which you can see here. It incorporates some important information about how what the interchange fee goes to pay for, and informed analysis by an independent industry expert about what is likely to happen to the interchange model in the years ahead. If you think maybe part of it could be incorporated somewhere else on the page, that would be fine too. I am closely involved in the debate about the interchange fee professionally, so I'd rather let someone else make the final call. Thanks! --Merchantswiki (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Authorizenet logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Authorizenet logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)