Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Hi there, I'll be mediating this case if no-one involved has any objection. Please give me some time to read through the information available before expecting a proper response. Thanks. —Xyrael / 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because communications on the article's talkpage are breaking down, I'd appreciate it if involved parties could answer the following questions to give me an idea of what is going on in their opinions. I would ask that discussion continues on the talkpage so that I am able to see what is going on over here. Thank you. —Xyrael / 11:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) What, in your opinion, is the problem that you'd like to solve?
a) Repeated edits of info deemed not sufficiently complimentary to the organization by members and supporters of Protest Warrior. This is happening, in one case, even after an Admin weighed in that the info (website popularity) was not OR, was NPOV and OK for inclusion. There also exists a 'group think' as the vast majority of editors working on the article are either Protest Warriors or PW supporters. This makes objectivity nearly impossible.
a. List specific examples (provide the edit diffs) of what material he thinks was deleted inappropriately.
b. Explain for each one why he thinks the edit was inappropriate.
c. Assume good faith that, although editors have points of view, edits may not have intentionally been POV or policy-violating.
d. Not attempt to “balance” POV or policy-violating edits with other POV or policy-violating inappropriate edits.
e. Even if he is being personally attacked, or treated incivilly, not resort to incivility, but instead conduct himself in a manner according to policies and point out the policy violation of the other person. Have faith that if he conducts himself according to policy and the other person does not, they will, if fact, be banned.
(4) What are you willing to do?
As always I am willing to:
a. Admit when I believe I am mistaken (about an edit or policy or anything else.)
b. Attempt to interpret, follow, and apply policy fairly towards the goal of improving articles.
c. Behave in a civil manner and in such a way as to work towards consensus, and maintain good relations between members (e.g. assume good faith, participate in mediation discussions and other dispute resolution processes)
d. Consider and discuss whether or not policy is being interpreted, followed, and applied fairly by myself or others.
e. Discuss any deletions or edits to the article and explain why according to policy I believe they are in/appropriate.
(1) What, in your opinion, is the problem that you'd like to solve?
I have pretty much the same problem I always have when trouble comes up with this article, barring the occasional outright vandal: POV pushing. I freely admit to being a member of the organization that the article is about, and because of this I am frequently accused of trying to "control" the article, when that is simply not the case; I keep an eye on it for vandalism and for POV pushing either in favor or against the subject. Digressions aside, I find that too many people are not willing to discuss the article, feeling sure that discussion could not be productive. There are too many cases of people assuming bad faith (see [1], [2]) simply because they disagree with the viewpoints of the other editors. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that, as a Protest Warrior, I (or Neverborn, RuthfulBarbarity) am not worthy of the same trust that is given to other editors.
(2) What would you like to change?
In regards to this particular dispute, I'd like to see more of what I've been seeing these last several days: NBGPWS actually being halfway reasonable. I must admit to being pleasantly surprised that he came back willing to talk rather than throw around vandalism warning templates, and feel that this is, for the moment, actually heading in the right direction, albeit slowly.
(3) What would you like the other parties to do?
For those opposed to Protest Warrior (and I entertain no illusions about the motivations of several editors to the article in that regard) keep a level head, and to bring evidence and sources to the table if they plan to level negative light on the subject. For those friendly towards or who are members of PW, I would like them to stay cool and deal with the issues in a rational manner. We would do well to follow our protest guidelines here just like we do at rallies; though Wikipedia is not a protest rally, the advice about keeping cool, knowing your subject, and dealing in reason rather than shouting is just as sound here.
(4) What are you willing to do?
I am, as I stated in response to Inahet's contention that I obviously would not reason with him, always willing to accommodate people who will sit down and actually talk with me. Anyone who brings evidence and reason to the table rather than ideologically driven screaming deserves at least a fair hearing, and I for one am willing to give it. I'm neither a monster nor a madman, and am quite willing to be swayed by logical persuasion. In essence, I ask for nothing more than respect and fair reasoning. That's all I reasonably can ask for, since I can't very well force people to agree with me, and wouldn't if I could.
Note to Rogue 9:
In case you missed it, I specifically singled you out for praise, and I have few, if any, problems with the actions and impartiality of you or Lawyer2b. (now that his status as a PW is out in the open ;-)
"Rogue 9, I read every word in the archives, and I commend you for your efforts here. You may be biased (both sides who feel strongly about PW display some bias) but you have, on repeated occasions, urged anon and non-anon pro PW posters, many of whom were called here by posts on PW and FR to vote on the AFD and subsequently made major changes, to show restraint, and work towards a balanced article. I salute you sir! NBGPWS Aug 27"
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
I'm delighted User:NBGPWS has asked for mediation. I do not believe the article is being edited to keep material that conforms to wikipedia policy out of the article and am confident outside observers will reach the same conclusion. The scrutiny is welcome for an additional reason, however. I believe that this mediation case should also involve an ongoing dispute regarding User:NBGPWS' edits to the talk page which I believe to show him trolling, making personal attacks, acting uncivilly, and using the talk page to vent and insult Protest Warriors and their organization. He has been asked numerous times by myself, and others to stop this behavior. Perhaps the mediation cabal can kill two birds with one stone and render an opinion on his edits and whether or not he should be banned, temporarily at least, from editing the article. I submit the following examples of User:NBGPWS' deliberate talkpage trolling, incivility, policy violations, and personal attacks:
[3]User:NBGPWS created a section title labeling Protest Warriors, "Pretend Warriors."
[4]User:NBGPWS' edit states, "Once again PW shows their true colors - agitating rather than supporting the causes they supposedly believe in."
[9] The first of at least three edits by User:NBGPWS laughing and highlighting what he perceives, incorrectly I might add, as misuse by User:Ruthfulbarbarity of the word "pore."
[10]User:NBGPWS Calls Ruthfulbarbarity ignorant for misusing "pore" (As an aside, he is mistaken. User:Ruthfulbarbarity used it exactly as intended).
[11] A yet third edit by User:NBGPWS sarcastically referencing the supposed word misuse.
[19]User:NBGPWS claims Protest Warriors have made "distortions and lies."
[20]User:NBGPWS inserts trolling comment likening Protest Warrior organization to a "floundering", "rudderless, captainless 'ghost ship' that is about to sink!" Sarcastically pleads with User:Ruthfulbarbarity to "save" it.
The mediator need only peruse the archives to read similar comments and worse from Protest Warriors (esp Ruthfulbarbarity) and their supporters. In an effort to rise above the atmosphere of contention, I will refrain from compiling a similar list of offences from Protest Warriors and their supporters. This mediation is about the article, not personality conflicts. I encourage you to focus on improving the article rather than personal greviences. AGF
If the mediators feel a separate mediation is needed to address your behavior, I will completely understand. Although the incidents I detail are not personal greivances but rather quite clear violations of wikipedia policy, I thank you for the encouragement. Since you obviously are capable of doing so, I might also suggest your most effective "encouragement" would be simply acting civilly on the talk page and refraining from making the kinds of edits you have in the past. Unfortunately, I don't think you see the benefit and/or correctness in doing so, and therefore I think it best to get mediators involved in this issue as well. Lawyer2b19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NBGPWS came to Wikipedia to disrupt the Protest Warrior article. One of his first edits was to put a Nazi slogan as an "example of PW's signs." He realized he'd get banned quick doing that, so he's trying to undermine the article any way he can. He continually adds material that has been shown to violate WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. He continually violates the no personal attacks rule and WP:AGF. His latest trick is to add "notable" threads from PW's forum - specifically, threads which make PW look bad - he's added 2 - one called "beat up a liberal day" which was by a troll on the forum and has a very small number of replies (5 pages on a forum where a controversial/interesting topic can get 10 in a few hours), most of which were critical of the Original Poster, and a thread asking if "PW is dead?" He has no interest of making an objective analysis of Protest Warrior, and continues to violate WP:NPOV in the process of making the article conform to his idea of what PW is. His name stands for "NeoCons Be Gone Protest Warrior Sucks." He also continually marks his edits as "minor edits" when they add or delete entire sections... simply to try and slide them under the radar. It's really just getting old at this point. He's been warned for blatant vandalism, multiple times for personal attacks, once for assume good faith, and blocked for the 3RR. The page was also completely protected from editing for at least a week due to his flooding of the article with "minor" edits that radically changed the article. Since then, he has refused to engage in constructive dialogue with us, instead resorting to personal attacks. How many passes does he get? --Neverborn07:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the article in question seems to be dominated by two individuals, NBGPWS & Ruthfulbarbarity. The back-and-forth between them does not seem to be getting the article anywhere. May I suggest that both back away from this topic for a few days, go work on some other articles, and then come back with a clear head? The current edit-wars, threats, accusations, etc are simply unacceptable and it would be better for Wikipedia if neither of you contributed rather than contributing garbage like that. Vpoko22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not on your opinion that policies are being applied unfairly, but after your return from your last block I haven't noticed you trolling, making personal attacks, or acting uncivilly. I welcome mediation on your issue and I look forward to discussing matters with you on the talk page. Lawyer2b06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked around at their site, and what little else I know is what I have gleaned from the heated debate on this talk page. In light of the recent efforts of some users, it appears to me, at least, that an effort is being made, in the light of some controversies that have surfaced, to sweep dirt under the rug regarding actions that some people have found questionable surrounding this community. This is being done under the claims, apparently, that NPOV allows no place for criticism (unquestionably false, especially when the topic of an article is a controversial organization) and the guidelines for biographies.The second one is far more concerning to be, particularly in that it appears that the effort appears to be one with the intention of gaming the system and bending rules to cover what they normally would not, in an effort to make the subject of the article look more or less controversial than it is. To do this in either of the directions that apparently interested editors would have is a disservice to the readership of Wikipedia. As (if I recall correctly) I have said above, I would fully support the involvement of a mediation entity such as the Mediation Cabal to help exclude interests from influencing the neutrality of this page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I, too, would support a mediation. For the 48 hours in which NBGPWS was blocked, the PW Talk page was peaceful. We all discussed things rationally and civilly, and got actual work done towards making the article a better article. As soon as he was back, the trolling template had to be re-added, and one of his first posts in the page violated WP:AGF and he demanded that a user not edit the article because he was a member of PW. At this point, I don't even know if mediation would work at this point, because NBGPWS has shown no indication he will abide by consensus anyway. --Neverborn06:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the last point. Although on the talk page, User:NBGPWS has been vociferously contesting the mention of 'Operation Military Shield' in the article, I believe he has refrained from editing it and that should be acknowledged. Lawyer2b07:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The trolling template was added in many hours before I returned after someone hacked the main page. You are misrepresenting the issues regarding L2B, too. I said I have no problem with PW's editing, as long as they're not trying to hide their association with PW.
I should have said vandalized. The template was added soon after someone changed to the whole article to 2 lines about PW = KKK, and hours before I returned from my suspension.
Here is just one example - the latest - to illustrate what's going on.
(you will have to refer to the talk page and the edits themselves for proof)
I contend that the several pro-PW editors are actively 'gaming the system' using Wikilawyering, violations and misinterpretations of WP, extensively and consistently to exclude valuable and notable information that they consider unfavorable to PW.
EXAMPLE ONE
I added the PW website stats, which document that PW's 'popularity' on the Web is 'continually and steadily declining'. I used those words. The stats prove that. Alexa itself uses the term 'popularity'. A pro-PW editor (L2B?) argued that 'continually and steadily' constituted POV. I conceded. No problem. He was right. (even though the stats proved my point) He then rewrote my wording taking out 'popularity' and using more obtuse wording about 'alexa toolbar clickers' (or similar) although Alexa itself says that their stats indicate the 'popularity' of any given site. I conceded again. No problem. I was willing to compromise. Alexa stats for PW
Tbeatty deleted the stats and Morton Devonshire unsuccessfully argued that Alexa stats were OR. Admin Kuzaar and editor Vpoko (a disinterested party regarding PW) countered him. Others weighed in that Alexa stats were, in no way, OR. Tbeatty (and Morton devonshire who doesn't even participate in discussion anymore) kept on deleting the stats, now claiming that I was 'cherrypicking' the data and extrapolating from it, by using 3 month figures.
The 3 month stats are the only stats that Alexa uses that show % changes. If you look at 3,6,12, or 24 month stats, the % change still uses current 3 month figures. That is not cherrypicking, Using one week or even one year figures would be cherry picking and extrapolating data, as Alexa only uses 3 month averages.
From Alexa:
"Since we feel that consistent traffic is a better indication of a site's value, we've chosen to use the three-month traffic rank to represent the site's overall popularity."
Ruthfulbarbarity argued that since I believe that Protest Warrior, as an organization, is not especially notable, then the stats can't be notable. These important stats have been deleted, once by Tbeatty without one word in the edit summary, over and over. Once after I objected to the deletion, Ruthfulbarbarity misstated the admin's position and claimed that the admin had deemed them OR and/or POV. Now they claim that since the stats change regularly that they can't be included. The article on Free Republic includes them, and it's no problem keeping them up-to-date. Again, I contend that the pro-PW editors (excluding Lawyer2b or Rogue 9) are actively 'gaming the system' using Wikilawyering, misinterpretations and violations of WP, extensively and consistently to exclude valuable and notable information that they consider unfavorable to PW. (to be continued)
I think the only edit I have done to the stats was here, when I removed the accompanying unsupported conclusion that the organization was declining in popularity and/or activity. I have also mentioned I think the stats’ notability is dubious and that most Wikipedia articles about organizations simply do not include such statistics. If the information meant the organization was undergoing a similar decline, which seemed your interpretation, I would agree on its notability. In this case, however, there is not non-original research to support such a conclusion and I would argue the same whether the article were about the ACLU, the United Nations, or ANSWER. When the notability of a primary-sourced fact like this is challenged, as a general rule, I think it is a good idea to find a secondary source that references it. This all being said, the inclusion of these statistics is simply not a major issue to me and you won’t find me editing them out should a consensus be reached to include them. However, other people may feel strongly enough that they are not notable, they detract from the article, and they don't want them included without it being a case of Wikipedia policy being applied unfairly. This is simply how consensus works. Lawyer2b02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:NBGPWS, I would like to have any example of “wikilawyering” or unfair application of policy addressed, but I simply don’t see this as being one. Can you provide any others? Lawyer2b02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry L2B - I wrote that for the mediator. I'll wait and let him (or her) comment and mediate.
I only have a cursory knowledge of, and a passing familiarity with WP but could tell intuitively, just using common sense, that the feeble attempt to get the ENTIRE ARTICLE classified as a biography of Alan and Kfir (by Tbeatty?) was improper WP and nothing more than a specious ploy to stifle criticism. It's hard if not impossible to AGF in light of the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise.
I would like to point out that Ruthfulbarbarity continues to obsessively-compulsively focus on and edit MY words on the mediation and discussion pages - content with no encyclopedic value - rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this GRAMMATICAL(added for RB) error been OBVIOUS for DAYS, and brought to his attention. "Very few major news organizations ' have ran ' (sic) stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."' Especially considering that, from what I can tell, I'm the only editor he does this to, I consider this an intentional provocation and an attempt to bait me. [27][28]
Maybe you can get L2B to explain it to you. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of you constantly correcting my spelling and grammar, but ingoring the grammatical error of the article using the incorrect and improper version of the Past Participle of the Verb 'run' - specifically ' HAVE RAN ' instead of the correct ' HAVE RUN ' .
You only corrected MY spelling and grammar - and ignored the obvious error in the article noted above - and when you made an ERROR editing my spelling - as in you did when you mistakingly corrected 'né' to née - you refused to correct it back to the PROPER and CORRECT spelling when you were proved wrong. Your actions aren't fooling anybody.
I would like to point out that Tbeatty just reverted NBGPWS's vandalism of adding a typo to Ruthfulbarbarity's post here on a mediation page. Doesn't this say something? --Neverborn02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You nead to AGF. I dint vandalize aneething. I corected ruthbars bad spilling. Jest like him, Im onlee tryeng to bee helpfull.
Doant forgette fooks, it waz ruthabraility nè wrathboone himselve who bragged wihle tonting me :
" I do not need your "permission" to make edits (to your text) that I deem proper and necessary. If you have a problem with them, then simply revert my changes."
Because anyone who examines how this problem started - with your incorrect and improper of edit of my word nè to nêe - followed by your refusal to edit it back to the proper and correct usage when asked - followed by more predatory edits to my text on non-encyclopedic talk pages after you were asked to stop can see who's at fault ?
The solution is simple. Don't edit my text on talk and discussion pages - and I won't edit yours.
Why are you so fixated upon this utterly irrelevant issue?
You've already received numerous warnings for your uncivil behavior, vandalism, and meandering tangents.
I suggest that you utilize this time productively instead of squandering it, as has so often been the case since you've been a member of this website.
If problems exist in the article devoted to Protest Warrior then formulate constructive critcism and/or propose possible solutions to those perceived problems.
You're not accomplishing anything by turning this discussion into your personal soapbox or platform for your irrelevant outbursts.
You are WRONG again, Ruthfulbarbarity. Discussion on talk pages is not Encyclopedic Content submitted for 'peer review'. Please stop. To take liberties with the monumentally memorable line of speech from 'The Planet of the Apes', spoken by the great actor and tireless defender of the 2nd amendment Charlton Heston - and offered only in good humour - again I suggest: "Keep your stinkin' paws off my text, you damned dirty ape !" I hope you are enjoying your Worker's Day, Ruthfulbarbarity! :-)
Basic rules for all talk pages
Sign your comments (see above)
Log in. (Read why here.)
Use coherent formatting.
Copy formatting from others.
Indent with colons (:), not with tabs.
Break up very large paragraphs.
Be civil at all times.
Don't make personal attacks
Don't SHOUT Do not edit other user's comments.
Your imperious-and uncalled for-emotional outbursts notwithstanding, I am not going to stop contributing to the Protest Warrior article-or to its corresponding talk page-simply because it aggravates you, for some inexplicable reason.
Regarding your improper and disallowed edits of my talk and discussion comments:
You told ME to 'look it up' and it would prove you right. Once again, after 'looking it up', I am right, and YOU have proven WRONG. Show me EXACTLY where you claim WP says you're allowed to edit my talk and discussion comments.
Basic rules for all talk pages Do not edit other user's comments.
Until you document, with WP that overides the WP which I posted - proving that you are allowed to edit even one letter or period of my text on talk pages - you are hereby ordered not to edit my talk or discussion comments !
Your non-answer to my charges of skullduggery amounts to a concession that you were wrong, and that you agree to stop editing my comments. GOOD ! It's about time. I hope you learned your lesson !
Err.. isn't it spelled 'vandaliZing' not 'vandaliSing' ? Let me check ! Yup ! I'm right, and you're wrong ! AGAIN ! LOL ! Go ahead and edit it - WP prevents me from doing so. I think it's OK for you to edit your OWN misspellings! LMAO NBGPWS08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult for me to mediate without a clear knowledge of what people want, so I asked the questions. However, it looks like I am going to have to try and glean what I can from what I have read. Firstly, I'm still not totally sure that this issue is appropriate for mediation because both of the two most heavily involved users have been repeatedly uncivil on numerous occasions. Looking at what you are all saying, it seems to me that a fresh start on discussions with a more civil attitude would solve all of the problems the article is having. I would like to propose that all parties agree to forget all they have discussed so far and withhold any grudges, and restart a discussion on the article's talk page for each seperate content issue with better attitudes. This is because I don't think there is really a dispute over content that can't be solved normally at all - it's merely a case of incivility ruining things. Does this seem like a reasonable idea? —Xyrael / 07:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I feel confident that you can glean much of the information you require from the extensive commentary already posted - although you will certainly note that several of the involved parties didn't answer your questionnaire. Just separate the wheat from the chaff! NBGPWS07:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being so blunt, but I think the best way to solve this problem is if both Ruthfulbarbarity and NBGPWS just stopped editing the article. Any factual information you two contribute is severely overshadowed by your constant arguing - and it takes two to argue. You should each take a month or two and work on some noncontrovertial projects. Vpoko15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Ruthfulbarbarity contends in his two responses below is patently untrue, but I will not sink to his level and answer with matching personal attacks. I am getting along quite well with L2B and R9, even though we are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to our affections for Protest Warrior. I have also accomplished a great deal of constructive work on the article, and much of the current version is my doing. My only goal is to prevent from happening again, what has happened to this article repeatedly since day one:
"The current edit is sheer propaganda for the Protest Warrior group. Troll edits of the article by Protest Warrior members are abusing Wikipedia for extremist propaganda" Oct 10, 2004"
I will gladly withdraw from the article if Ruthfulbarbarity does, as long as another editor who opposes Islamophobic hate groups monitors this article and participates on a regular basis to prevent the Protest Warriors and their supporters from turning this article into a press release / recruiting ad for their organization, as has been their past history.
The only problem with that resolution is that NBGPWS argues with almost every other single editor here.
Even if it were possible to completely ignore or disregard him he would still serve as a nuisance to everyone else.
I've tried to edit and/or create other articles during this time period, but I don't think I should be precluded from stopping NBG from damaging an article simply because he adamently refuses to work in a congenial manner with other editors.
I tried to withdraw myself from this whole issue several times, and it didn't resolve the problem.
The simple explanation is that the problem persisted because NBG is the source of this rancor, not any pre-existing conflict he and I might have.
In all honesty, I have no problem withdrawing from this entire debate on the condition that NBG does so as well.
However, I doubt that he'll agree to that stipulation, since his entire purpose here-and the impetus behind his registration with this website in the first place-is to vandalize the Protest Warrior article, and to disrupt the ongoing discussion related to improving the PW article.
Good lord, you guys can't even get through a few minutes without accusations and silly warning templates flying around. If the ArbCom saw this, they'd probably ban you both from the article and that would be the end of it. I hope we don't need to take that step, but I don't see what else we can do at this point. Vpoko17:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know I haven't posted any warning templates to this page.
My point stands.
The person instigating this entire charade is NeoCons.
Even if I take myself out of this equation altogether-which I have attempted in the past-he will still be initiating conflicts with other editors, so the core of the problem will remain unresolved.Ruthfulbarbarity19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The core of the problem is Protest Warrior and their supporters wanting to delete any and all criticism and attempting to turn this article into a press release / recruiting ad for their organization. NBGPWS20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not the case.
Wherever there have been verifiable, non-OR, notable sources documenting Protest Warrior's activities-even from a critical perspective-everyone has been in agreement that they should be included within the article.Ruthfulbarbarity21:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. Tbeatty even argued against the inclusion of a mostly complimentary article on 'Operation Liberty Rising'-fallaciously attempting to impugn the source. Tbeatty and Morton Devonshire repeatedly deleted Alexa stats, then tried to have them excluded as OR. Protest Warriors and/or supporters also improperly tried to have the whole article classified as a biography of Alan and Kfir in an effort to discourage criticism. That's all happened in the last few weeks. NBGPWS21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a template for warning users not to edit other user's comments. (just found it) The WP which you repeatedly broke. The WP which you were POSITIVE didn't exist.
I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,
After reading more about WP, and in light of the continuing personal attacks from Ruthfulbarbarity, and Neverborn, I am thinking that perhaps the whole Protest Warrior article SHOULD be turned over to ArbCom. While posting to Ruth's talk page, I read some old comments to him from admin Kuzaar (posted here)
Editing articles in which you have a personal interest is discouraged by guidelines, according to community consensus, not just me.
it appears that you have a personal interest or opinion on the subject (which is similarly cautioned against in some of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines), and second, that because of the first reason, it is very easy to slip into adding opinion and commentary to the article, which is a fairly serious risk.
There are 4 or 5 active Protest Warriors, several Protest Warrior defenders, and one person vehemently opposed to Protest Warrior (me) actively working on the article. Except in rare circumstances, we are the only people working on the article. ALL of us have strong personal interests / opinions. Perhaps the best solution would be to turn the whole article over to one or more politically neutral disinterested editors and let THEM edit it.
I believe this all the more in light of the continuing attacks upon me by Ruthfulbarbarity, Neverborn and others even though my contributions to the article itself in the last week or so have only been constructive and beneficial. (I do tend to spar a bit on the talk page - but better there than in the article)
Should Protest Warriors, their defenders, and those strongly opposed to Protest Warrior EVEN BE EDITING THIS ARTICLE?
(I couldn't find this info in WP. A link would be appreciated)
The ArbCom does not "take over" articles - they deal with serious breaches of Wikipedia policy when all other methods have failed. Unless your goal is to have all of you banned from the article (or all political articles), I would stay off that road and try to resolve the problem yourself. Vpoko14:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Neverborn nor I have engaged in "personal attacks."
Asking you to comport yourself to some minimal standards of basic etiquette, refrain from vandalizing articles, and attempt to achieve consensus do not constitute "personal attacks," your churlish, querulous accusations notwithstanding.
My suggestion to you, Neocons, is that you use some of the inordinant amount of time you spend here constructively, looking for ways to improve this article, rather than compiling a list of meritless complaints and laughable allegations against your fellow editors. Ruthfulbarbarity14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your charges and denials are baseless - approx half the article was written, or contributed, by me. You've also been warned, on numerous occasions, for your continuing personal attacks. Do I need to repost the quote where you called me a 'hyperactive dim chimpanzee'? I understand it's too much for me to expect you to take responsibility for your actions, but I suggest that you at least quit denying them - especially when they're archived for anyone who might have an interest in pathology to see. NBGPWS18:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously neither of you want to stop fighting because you keep responding to each other. It would just take one of you to be the bigger person and not reply, but you'd both keep escalating it. Don't bother pointing fingers, you're both responsible. Vpoko19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A cogent point, VP. If Ruthbar were a big enough person to admit, EVEN ONCE, that was wrong, as he has been proven to be twice IN THE LAST WEEK (with 'nè' and editing other users comments) and would actually AGREE to stop editing my comments - a transgression strongly condemned by Wikipedia - we would be a lot closer to harmony. He's either unwilling or simply incapable of doing either. Be that as it may, actions speak louder than words, and my practical and worthwhile contributions have been responsible for approx half of the content of current article. NBGPWS21:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true.
Almost all of the sources you located-with two notable exceptions-have been rejected out of hand.
They have either failed to meet the test of OR, or been culled from non-notable sources, or been wholly inappropriate.
What I wrote regarding my contributions is entirely true. Let's count... shall we? The Anti-Islam (1) screed from Kfir and Alan was added into the article by me. (that's a significant portion of the whole page) The shorter list of the signs (2) is there due to me, instead of the tendentious list of almost every sign ever created, which was there prior to my actions. The 'command and control' description (3) and link (4) are mine. The addition of Dominionism (4) Christian Reconstructionist (5), and Caldecon (6) are mine. The denial by Kfir (7) is mine. All three past operations (8) (9) (10) are mine. (the only documented accounts of PW's counter-protest activity in the article - ones I contributed!) The last three external links (11) (12) (13) are mine. The Alexa description (14) and link to stats (15) are mine.
What I wrote is undeniably true, and you and neverborn are advised not to deny my valuable DOCUMENTED (and enumerated) contributions - contributions which have survived numerous challenges, and stood the test of time, any longer, lest you care to be known as revisionists - or even worse - bald-faced liars. NBGPWS00:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about?
"Islam Ascendant" is on Protest Warrior's main page.
You had nothing to do with creating it, or locating it.
Everyone who visits Protestwarrior.com-and is able to scroll downward-notices that newsletter highlighted on its main page.
The Alexa ratings-insofar as they even belong in that article-could have been located by anyone who was browsing that website and was curious about the Web traffic for Protestwarrior.com.
Your suppositions and speculations as to what the Alexa ratings meant were uniformly dismissed because they constituted OR, or did you miss that part of our discussion? Ruthfulbarbarity01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it is clear that discussions are not going anywhere. Therefore I propose that both editors step away from the article entirely and do not make any edits. If one breaks this, the other one can get back involved. Does this seem fair? As Vpoko has pointed out, you are just going round in circles, so please don't post anything more to this page if you agree with my suggestion and simply sign below. Thank you. —Xyrael / 08:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Signature:
Signature:
The discussions aren't going anywhere, but the article in progressing just fine, (due much in part to my tireless, fair and bipartisan efforts! + L2B & R9) I'll just ignore the insults and attempts to bait me by certain individuals. I would only agree to your suggestion if another liberal became actively involved in the editing and monitoring of the article on a daily basis. The article shouldn't be edited SOLELY by Protest Warriors and their supporters. If another liberal wants to take over my important 'watchdog' role, I'll agree in a heartbeat. I will however, withdraw my request for Mediation, if you advise that. After reading more about WP, it could be that it would have been more beneficial if I had asked for an RFC anyway. NBGPWS08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
